Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-01

Network Working Group                                       B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Updates: 8713 (if approved)                                   S. Farrell
Intended status: Best Current Practice            Trinity College Dublin
Expires: September 19, 2020                               March 18, 2020

        Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
                 draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-01

Abstract

   This document updates the criteria for qualifying volunteers to
   participate in the IETF Nominating Committee.  It therefore also
   updates the criteria for qualifying signatories to a community recall
   petition.  The purpose is to make the criteria more flexible in view
   of increasing remote participation in the IETF and a probable decline
   in face-to-face meetings.  This document updates RFC8713.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Carpenter & Farrell    Expires September 19, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Additional Eligibility Criteria          March 2020

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Possible Future Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee is populated
   from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of attendance at
   IETF plenary face-to-face meetings.  In view of the unexpected
   cancellation of the IETF 107 meeting, the risk of future
   cancellations, the probability of less frequent meetings in future in
   support of sustainability, and a general increase in remote
   participation, this document defines additional criteria to qualify
   volunteers in future.

   Also according to [RFC8713], the qualification for signing a
   community petition for the recall of certain IETF office-holders is
   that same as for the Nominating Committee.  This document does not
   change that, but see Section 4.

2.  Goals

   The goals of the new criteria are as follows:

   o  Mitigate the issue of active remote (or rarely in-person)
      participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall
      processes.

   o  Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less
      frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of
      participants).

   o  Do this quickly in view of the risk of IETF 108 being cancelled
      too, but ensure that the result is flexible for the future.

Carpenter & Farrell    Expires September 19, 2020               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Additional Eligibility Criteria          March 2020

   o  Ensure that those eligible are true "participants" with enough
      current understanding of IETF practice and people to make informed
      decisions.

   o  The criteria must be algorithmic so that the Secretariat can check
      them mechanically.

3.  Criteria

   There will be several alternative paths to qualification, replacing
   the single criterion in section 4.14 of [RFC8713].  Any one of the
   paths is sufficient, unless the person is otherwise disqualified
   under section 4.15 of [RFC8713]:

   o  Path 1: As previously, the person has attended 3 out of the last 5
      in-person IETF meetings.

   o  Path 2: Has been a WG Chair or Secretary within the last 3 years.

   o  Path 3: Has submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of an
      official IETF review team within the last 3 years.

   o  Path 4: Has served in the IESG or IAB, or has been appointed to a
      formal role by the IESG or IAB, within the last 5 years.

   o  Path 5: Has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs
      within the last 5 years.  A draft that has been approved by the
      IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts.

   o  Open question: should we also consider authorship of drafts
      formally adopted by a WG?  BOFs?

   o  Another open question: do we need to consider how many nomcom
      voting members qualify via which paths?  For example, would it be
      ok if all 10 nomcom voting members qualified via path 4 in one
      year?

   Certain criteria were rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF
   participation, or not being objectively and mechanically measurable.
   These included authorship of individual Internet-Drafts, prolific
   email, and the simple fact of remote meeting attendance; not to
   mention any qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions.

4.  Possible Future Work

   o  Combined paths (e.g., a person who partly satisfies Path 3 and
      Path 5).

Carpenter & Farrell    Expires September 19, 2020               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       Additional Eligibility Criteria          March 2020

   o  Considering "time decay" so that recent participation is more
      highly valued.

   o  Separating the NomCom volunteer criteria from the recall
      petitioner criteria.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document should not affect the security of the Internet.

7.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

8.  Normative References

   [RFC8713]  Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood,
              Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection,
              Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF
              Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>.

Authors' Addresses

   Brian E. Carpenter
   The University of Auckland
   School of Computer Science
   PB 92019
   Auckland  1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com

   Stephen Farrell
   Trinity College Dublin
   College Green
   Dublin
   Ireland

   Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie

Carpenter & Farrell    Expires September 19, 2020               [Page 4]