On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:22 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Ok, I hope you give chance to others give opinion to agree/other now and in the future until 30 April,
The
proposed draft is acceptable within our processes, and seems to be a
sufficiently good answer to a problem we have to resolve, now.
I usually don't follow IETF list, but I checked now the IETF list and their were opinions smilar to my opinion.
However, I just replied my comments to The IESG request, also I replied to clarifications request by participants, which may change their mind, so I hope you give that availability.
Best regards
AB
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
