Mostly just to help the IESG judge rough consensus, AB I strongly
disagree with your interpretation of the facts on the ground, and
therefore disagree with your interpretation of what "must" be done. The
proposed draft is acceptable within our processes, and seems to be a
sufficiently good answer to a problem we have to resolve, now.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/9/2020 9:08 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Benjamin,
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:55 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx
<mailto:kaduk@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi AB,
On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 08:00:38PM +0200, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:29 PM Pete Resnick
<resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> > [Moving over to last-call, where the discussion on this draft
is taking
> > place...]
> >
> > On 4 Apr 2020, at 8:52, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> >
> > > It is clear in section 4.14 of RFC8713, it defines that last
meetings
> > > as the last meeting and not the last f2f meetings.
> >
> > I think this is the key part of your message. It is *not* clear
that
> > "meetings" refers to other than face-to-face meetings. At the
time of
> > the writing of this requirement, there was not such thing as a
> > non-face-to-face meeting, and I don't think it is clear that the
> > intention of those who worked on this document would have been to
> > include virtual meetings in the qualifications. That is not to
say that
> > the text can't be read the way you are reading it; it's a
reasonable
> > interpretation. But it's not *clear* that yours is the only
> > interpretation.
> >
> > You seem to be OK with the proposal that 102 gets counted; you
only seem
> > to be objecting to not counting 107. So, when you say you
"don't accept"
> > the solution proposed in this document, can you explain more
clearly why
> > the attendance at 107 absolutely must be counted? Is it simply
that you
> > don't accept that 8713 intended only face-to-face meetings be
counted
> > for qualification, or that it's unfair to not count 107, or is it
> > something else? You might still end up in the "rough" part of
the "rough
> > consensus", but if you've got an argument that convinces the
rest of us,
> > I'm sure it would considered.
> >
>
> We don't forget that who wrote the RFC8713 also ment by meeting
is the
> meeting that the IETF managers call it a meeting, so our IETF
managers have
> already called for a meeting and they called it meeting 107, so
do you say
> that 107 is not a meeting, if you say that, let us hear from our
managers
> what do they call 107. When you go to any meeting in the past or
in present
> or in future, usually you know who calls for the meeting, its the
managers
> call for the meeting, and the members or participants follow and
come for
> it and make effort. In our case, the IETF did call for the
meeting and did
> decide to make it official so participants followed. Therefore,
how can we
> exclude this meeting 107 and it is the real part of the last 5
meetings
> that managers called for them. Also we don't forget the effort
that many
> participated in attending IETF107 meeting. The RFC8713 does not
say to
> exclude just because non f2f, so I think my opinion is more close to
> RFC8713 than excluding a meeting without finding any text refers
to f2f or
> any text refering to way of excluding meetings and replacing other.
>
> >
> > Also remember that there is a separate discussion, over on
> > eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:eligibility-discuss@xxxxxxxx>, about the broader effort to
make remote
> > attendance count toward NomCom eligibility. I think your
comments and
> > suggestions would be much more helpful over there. Barry's
document is
> > about a one-time stop-gap measure. The other effort is about
updating
> > 8713 to make it clear that remote participation (and perhaps
some other
> > criteria) should count toward NomCom eligibility.
> >
>
> I usually also commented/suggested that when a manager calls for
last 5
> meetings and participants are absent in two meeting then by
RFC8713 they
> are eligible, so even if I add meeting 102, I should make sure
that a
> participant must have only two absent of (103,104,105,106), I
just will add
> 102 to give him chance to be eligible even if he/she did not
attend 107
> because of the pandemic. So if participant is absent in 107 we
don't count
> his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because
it was
> called for by managers.
I'm confused about the use of "MUST" here. It sounds like you are
saying
that RFC 8713 requires it, but I think the whole premise of the
document in
question is that it is updating and overriding RFC 8713 for the case of
IETF 107 and the 2020/2021 nomcomm. That is, we are not bound by
RFC 8713
since we can change any provisions that we need to -- we want to
limit the
amount of the change to just what we need to have a clear picture
for this
year's nomcom, but that is only out of a desire to make a minimal change
and not due to an obligation to remain faithful to the specific
strictures
of RFC 8713.
I believe we are bound because we are discussing and reviewing a draft
now to become RFC after the last meeting 107, not before.
If this document under review was published before 107 meeting, then yes
we are not bound, this virtual meeting is part of the last 5 meetings.
Therefore, if there is low attendance for the 107 meeting, we may say we
are not bound because low attendance, but there are many participants
attended,
so we should respect their time, difficulties and respect RFC8713. There
was an opportunity for postpone of 107 meeting to publish this draft,
but we did not have that.
That is why I said 107 meeting MUST be counted. If RFC8713 is about a
building or product process, yes I may not bound we can change which has
no feelings, but when it comes about humans including and
excluding, then should be bound by authorised-documents. Without
forgetting that bounding is just for one NomCom in very special case
with high health risk now-while-review, in the world that may continue.
> Usually absence affects meetings and are counted at no pandemics, but
> attendance are always counted in all meetings. People's time
count, how can
> a document say that we exclude a meeting just because it was not f2f,
> however, the question is do you have authority to exclude a
meeting while
> the managers of IETF already called for the meeting and the
managers did
> not cancel the meeting???
The proposal is to publich a BCP document with IETF consensus, the same
strength of rules that produced RFC 8713. Is that not enough authority?
What about the participants that attended 3 of 5 from 103-107 including
virtual-107 which did not attend 102, don't they now are authorised to
become legible, before publishing this proposal draft.
The authority is not with group-consensus it is with published
authority-documents, and there is no good reason why to exclude a
participant that attended meetings and now is eligible. We don't forget
that who attended 102 and only two other in-person meeting is in this
time or by now is not eligible, because he/she has no authority and now
some want to make him/her eligible after the 107 meeting ended.
Best Regards,
AB
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
