Re: [Last-Call] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I also supported IETF 107 participation to count but IETF 107 participants including myself did not pay registration fee, 
so no pay no vote, 
it is that simple :)

Behcet

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:01 AM Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux