Shepherd writeup
rfc8989-10

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


Back