Skip to main content

Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-02-01
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-01-29
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2021-01-20
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-01-11
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-01-11
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-01-11
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-01-11
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2021-01-11
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-01-11
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2021-01-11
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2021-01-11
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-01-11
10 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2021-01-11
10 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2021-01-08
10 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2021-01-07
10 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-10.txt
2021-01-07
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2021-01-07
10 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2021-01-07
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2021-01-07
09 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-01-07
09 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2021-01-07
09 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-01-06
09 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-01-06
09 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Section 2

                                          …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2

                                                                Points
  to be considered are whether the experiment has produced a
  sufficiently large and diverse pool of individuals, whether enough of
  those individuals have volunteered to produce a representative
  Nominating Committee with good knowledge of the IETF, and whether all
  the goals in Section 3 have been met.  [...]

(side note) I could imagine a scenario where the answers for some of
these points/questions might change between the NomCom being seated and
the completion of their work ... but I do not propose changing the
timeline.

  The IESG will determine and announce the consensus of this discussion
  in good time for the 2022-2023 Nominating Committee cycle to
  commence.

We may have to admit the possibility of lack of consensus ("results of
the consensus determination"), to avoid being in an impossible state
where consensus is absent, but is required before starting the 2022-2023
NomCom, but the timeline requires starting it.
2021-01-06
09 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-01-06
09 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. My YES ballot is really a loud YES ;-)

It is really critical to …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. My YES ballot is really a loud YES ;-)

It is really critical to continue to have a fair process for NomCom. Special thanks as well to Robert & Carsten.

Please find below one some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric
== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
  "The experiment is of fixed duration and will
  apply to one, or at most two, consecutive Nominating Committee
  cycles."
To be on the safe side, should the cycle be explicit enumerated (like in section 2) ?

-- Section 2 --
Just curious about why the IESG should only consult the NomCom chairs and not the NomCom members (including non-voting members == liaisons) ? The intent of this document is really critical, so, I would have assumed that the more source of information, the better.

-- Section 3 --
In the first bullet, should the term "active participants" be defined? Perhaps a forward reference to section 4 ?

-- Section 4 --
Path 1: Honestly, I find the criteria of "for at least one session of an online IETF meeting." a little weak... The bar is really low in this case (registering for one day and attending one WG session).

Path 2: could we add directorate chairs to the mix ?

-- Section 7 --
Semi-seriously, I do consider this document as improving the security of the Internet by keeping the diversity and effectiveness of NomCom.

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --
I am afraid that I cannot parse "assumed when that document was approved to be face-to-face meetings" (possibly because English is not my native language).
2021-01-06
09 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-01-05
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Dan Harkins for the SECDIR review.
2021-01-05
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-01-05
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-01-04
09 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-01-04
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot comment]
Timely - much thanks for doing!
2021-01-04
09 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2021-01-04
09 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-01-04
09 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
I'm glad this is happening.  I tried but failed a couple of times in the past to do this, so I'm glad someone …
[Ballot comment]
I'm glad this is happening.  I tried but failed a couple of times in the past to do this, so I'm glad someone managed to get it done.

Just one thing to clarify: "approved drafts" refers to an I-D that the IESG has balloted on and approved but hasn't yet been published as an RFC, correct?
2021-01-04
09 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-01-03
09 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Enthusiastic “Yes” here, and thanks for the work on this.  I have one minor, no-big-deal comment:

  *  Path 3: Has been a …
[Ballot comment]
Enthusiastic “Yes” here, and thanks for the work on this.  I have one minor, no-big-deal comment:

  *  Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of
      at least 2 IETF stream RFCs within the last 5 years prior to the
      day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the community.  An
      Internet-Draft that has been approved by the IESG and is in the
      RFC Editor queue counts the same as a published RFC (with the
      relevant date being the date the draft was added to the RFC Editor
      queue).  So the 5 year timer extends back to the date 5 years
      before the date when the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the
      community.

The last sentence seems superfluous, repetitive of the first sentence.  I also suggest slight rewording so that the first and second sentences both emphasize the relevant dates:

NEW
  *  Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of
      at least 2 IETF stream RFCs whose publication dates are within
      the last 5 years prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers
      is sent to the community.  An Internet-Draft that has been approved
      by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts the same as a
      published RFC, with the relevant date being the date the draft was
      added to the RFC Editor queue.
END

Alternatively, perhaps this?:

NEW
  *  Path 3: Has been a listed author or editor (on the front page) of
      at least 2 IETF stream RFCs, published or approved and in the RFC
      Editor queue, within the last 5 years prior to the day the call for
      NomCom volunteers is sent to the community.  For published RFCs,
      the relevant date is the date of publication.  For documents in the
      RFC Editor queue, the relevant date is the date the draft was added
      to the RFC Editor queue.
END
2021-01-03
09 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2021-01-01
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2021-01-01
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2021-01-01
09 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-09.txt
2021-01-01
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2021-01-01
09 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-12-31
08 Alissa Cooper Ballot has been issued
2020-12-31
08 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2020-12-31
08 Alissa Cooper Created "Approve" ballot
2020-12-31
08 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2020-12-31
08 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2020-12-30
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-12-28
08 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list.
2020-12-17
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Harkins. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2020-12-14
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Harkins.
2020-12-08
08 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-01-07
2020-12-07
08 Bron Gondwana
Shepherding write up for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand

(1) This RFC is of type Experimental, and is a temporary
update to a BCP (RFC8713)

(2) Document …
Shepherding write up for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand

(1) This RFC is of type Experimental, and is a temporary
update to a BCP (RFC8713)

(2) Document writeup

Technical Summary:

This document details an expanded set of rules for calculating
eligibility for roles within the IETF.

The rules are in the form of a time-limited experiment, which
will revert to the previous rules at the end of the experient
unless further action is taken.


Working Group Summary:

This is an A-D sponsored draft.  There was significant discussion
on the eligibility-discuss mailing list, particularly because of the
disparate goals of participants.

There are two key issues trying to be solved.  One is dealing with
the immediate circumstances which mean that in-person meetings are
not viable.  The other is that our current eligibility criteria
bias towards those who are physically and financially able to travel
in person to meetings, and exclude those who are unable or unwilling
to physically travel.

Due to the amount discussion, RFC8788 was created to deal with the
immediate issue of the 2020 Nomcom, while this document was further
debated.

Despite having solved the immediate problem, it is still necessary
to have an approach in place for future Nomcom and recall purposes,
so this document represents both a compromise and a limitation in
scope of that discussion to the areas where there was general
agreement.  In the absence of further action, this document will
lapse after one nominating cycle.


Document Quality:

This document has been considerably workshopped on the list.
It is ready to publish.  An almost final version was reviewed
by multiple past nomcom chairs and authors of related documents,
leading to minor wording improvements but no change of intent.


Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Bron Gondwana
Area Director: Alissa Cooper

(3) The document shepherd has followed all the disussions on
the list, attended all the (virtual) face-to-face meetings
that discussed the draft, and contributed to the discussion.

(4) The document has been very thoroughly reviewed with a high
level of involvement, and data has been collected in order to
test how it would have altered eligibility if it was in force
for previous years.

(5) The document has already been reviewed by people from a wide
cross-section of the IETF and doesn't need any other reviews.

(6) The document shepherd has no concerns about this document.

(7) Both authors confirmed that they have no IPR to disclose.

(8) No IPR disclosures have been posted.

(9) There are some members of the IETF who would like to go
further with this, but nobody had strong objections to running
this experiment for next year.

(10) Nobody has threatened to appeal.

(11) idnits reports 4 lines which are 1 character too long due
to the URL that they link to, but these should change during
the editing process to be shorter as they point to draft names.

(12) There are no technical reviews required.

(13) All references are normative references to IETF documents.

(14) There are no references awaiting publication.

(15) There are no downwards references.

(16) This document will change a process from BCP 10 for the
period of the experiment.

(17) This document does not make any requests of IANA.

(18) N/A

(19) There are no sections written in a formal language.

(20) N/A


2020-12-06
08 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2020-12-03
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2020-12-03
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2020-12-03
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles
2020-12-03
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles
2020-12-03
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2020-12-03
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2020-12-02
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2020-12-02
08 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2020-12-02
08 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-12-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-12-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee
Eligibility'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-12-30. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a process experiment under RFC 3933 that
  temporarily 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 reduction in
  face-to-face meetings.  The experiment is of fixed duration and will
  apply to one, or at most two, Nominating Committee cycles.  This
  document temporarily varies the rules in RFC 8713.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza Last call was requested
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was generated
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2020-12-02
08 Amy Vezza IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-11-24
08 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-08.txt
2020-11-24
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-11-24
08 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-11-13
07 Alissa Cooper IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2020-11-12
07 Bron Gondwana
Shepherding write up for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand

(1) This RFC is of type Experimental, and is a temporary
update to a BCP (RFC8713)

(2) Document …
Shepherding write up for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand

(1) This RFC is of type Experimental, and is a temporary
update to a BCP (RFC8713)

(2) Document writeup

Technical Summary:

This document details an expanded set of rules for calculating
eligibility for roles within the IETF.

The rules are in the form of a time-limited experiment, which
will revert to the previous rules at the end of the experient
unless further action is taken.


Working Group Summary:

This is an A-D sponsored draft.  There was significant discussion
on the eligibility-discuss mailing list, particularly because of the
disparate goals of participants.

There are two key issues trying to be solved.  One is dealing with
the immediate circumstances which mean that in-person meetings are
not viable.  The other is that our current eligibility criteria
bias towards those who are physically and financially able to travel
in person to meetings, and exclude those who are unable or unwilling
to physically travel.

Due to the amount discussion, RFC8788 was created to deal with the
immediate issue of the 2020 Nomcom, while this document was further
debated.

Despite having solved the immediate problem, it is still necessary
to have an approach in place for future Nomcom and recall purposes,
so this document represents both a compromise and a limitation in
scope of that discussion to the areas where there was general
agreement.  In the absence of further action, this document will
lapse after one nominating cycle.


Document Quality:

This document has been considerably workshopped on the list.
It is ready to publish.  An almost final version was reviewed
by multiple past nomcom chairs and authors of related documents,
leading to minor wording improvements but no change of intent.


Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Bron Gondwana
Area Director: Alissa Cooper

(3) The document shepherd has followed all the disussions on
the list, attended all the (virtual) face-to-face meetings
that discussed the draft, and contributed to the discussion.

(4) The document has been very thoroughly reviewed with a high
level of involvement, and data has been collected in order to
test how it would have altered eligibility if it was in force
for previous years.

(5) The document has already been reviewed by people from a wide
cross-section of the IETF and doesn't need any other reviews.

(6) The document shepherd has no concerns about this document.

(7)

(8) No IPR disclosures have been posted.

(9) There are some members of the IETF who would like to go
further with this, but nobody had strong objections to running
this experiment for next year.

(10) Nobody has threatened to appeal.

(11) idnits reports 4 lines which are 1 character too long due
to the URL that they link to, but these should change during
the editing process to be shorter as they point to draft names.

(12) There are no technical reviews required.

(13) All references are normative references to IETF documents.

(14) There are no references awaiting publication.

(15) There are no downwards references.

(16) This document will change a process from BCP 10 for the
period of the experiment.

(17) This document does not make any requests of IANA.

(18) N/A

(19) There are no sections written in a formal language.

(20) N/A


2020-11-01
07 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-07.txt
2020-11-01
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-11-01
07 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-10-13
06 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.txt
2020-10-13
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-10-13
06 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-09-08
05 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt
2020-09-08
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-09-08
05 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-09-03
04 Alissa Cooper Notification list changed to Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
2020-09-03
04 Alissa Cooper Document shepherd changed to Bron Gondwana
2020-09-03
04 Alissa Cooper Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2020-09-03
04 Alissa Cooper Stream changed to IETF from None
2020-09-03
04 Alissa Cooper Shepherding AD changed to Alissa Cooper
2020-08-27
04 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04.txt
2020-08-27
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-08-27
04 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
03 Pete Resnick Added to session: IETF-108: gendispatch  Thu-1300
2020-07-01
03 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-03.txt
2020-07-01
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-07-01
03 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-03-28
02 Stephen Farrell New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02.txt
2020-03-28
02 (System) New version approved
2020-03-28
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Brian Carpenter , Stephen Farrell
2020-03-28
02 Stephen Farrell Uploaded new revision
2020-03-17
01 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-01.txt
2020-03-17
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Brian Carpenter)
2020-03-17
01 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision
2020-03-17
00 Pete Resnick Added to session: IETF-107: gendispatch  Wed-2140
2020-03-16
00 Brian Carpenter New version available: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-00.txt
2020-03-16
00 (System) New version approved
2020-03-16
00 Brian Carpenter Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Brian Carpenter
2020-03-16
00 Brian Carpenter Uploaded new revision