Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Donald Eastlake]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ted Hardie  wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake  wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie  wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> We need all the volunteers we can get.
>>
>> I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
>> maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
>> concern for their level of interest. As far as I can tell, the nomcom
>> worked fine in its early years when there commonly less than 50
>> volunteers.
>
> Burnout risk alone should tell you it isn't nonsense, even if you care
> absolutely nothing about the diversity of volunteers available to NomCom.

Ah, burnout! Thanks for bringing up this point which supports my position.

I'd been thinking that the only significant harm of the annual
drum-banging to get more volunteers and all the wailing and gnashing
of teeth if, say, there are "only 70" volunteers, was arm-twisting
people who aren't that involved or interested into volunteering. (And
I have evidence to support this in that there was usually one
"deadbeat" voting member, who did very little, on nomcoms in which I
was involved.) But, of course, it is also a significant harm that it
may cause people to volunteer who are burnt out and otherwise would
refrain. You know, there is a reason they are called *volunteers*.

Lets say there were 50 qualified volunteers each year. If someone
volunteered every year, they'd only serve one in five on average,
which doesn't sound too bad to me, and if/when they actually serve
they don't have to volunteer again until they are ready to. In fact,
for years (I just checked the past three), the volunteer pool has been
running around 100 people. I just don't see how involuntary burn-out
can possibly be a problem.

Then there is diversity. Sounds fine, but I do not think it would be a
good way to increase diversity by qualifying people who would be, *on
average*, less involved and less widely involved in the IETF.

> The NomCom takes time and energy to do well, and if someone cares
> enough about the IETF to volunteer it, turning them away because some
> of their most recent experience was on day passes is silly.  I know at

It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit
lower than what I think. But to change it, there should be a real WG
process. The criteria is that for 3 out of the last 5 meetings,
qualify to attend for the week, show up and pick up your badge, and
get publicly listed for a while so anyone who thinks you are not
qualified can object. I don't think that should be changed due to an
IAOC experiment.

> least two former ADs who attended the last meeting on day passes,
> and we have seen others who have not met a 3/5 rule only because
> illness forced them to participate remotely.  ...

So, do you think that every case should be judged separately and
individually? By who? I think you need a simple, easy to objectively
enforce, bright-line rule.

> ...
>
>
> Ted

Thanks,
Donald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Xiangsong Cui]

- Original Message - 
From: "Sam Hartman" 

To: "IETF" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment



I fairly strongly support the IESG's proposed policy statement on the
day pass experiment.  I specifically belive that it is counter to our
ability to fund our ongoing activities to turn the day pass experiment
into a way to reduce the cost of attending IETF on an ongoing basis.  We


Attending a non-IETF-attendanced IETF meeting? And tell them their
one-day-pass activity does not count as IETF meeting attendance? 


I think there are two separate questions:
1, Does the one-day-pass count as IETF meeting attendance?
2, Is one-day-pass attendance qualified for nomcom memeber?

For the second question I have no strong opinion, 
but for the first one, I think it does.


Regards, Xiangsong

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Robert Elz]

Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 16:25:12 -0400
From:Russ Housley 
Message-ID:  <4be86ba8.2060...@vigilsec.com>

  | From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
  | expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
  | IETF meeting, and that others had the opposite expectation.  Both views
  | have been expressed on this thread.

That much I can understand, and that is all OK.

  | Thus, an interpretation of the rule stated in RFC 3777 is needed.

But given that we have people with different opinions, we cannot just
pick one and say "that's it" - whichever one you pick, you can't get
consensus because there are lots of people who prefer the other.

That's what working groups are good for - slower certainly - but they can
lead to either compromise, or perhaps an entirely different way of looking
at the problem.

There's not going to be any quick fix for this, and aside from some people's
desire to have one rule over the other (for reasons that still aren't
clear to me) there is still no actual problem.   Nothing is actually
breaking because of this.

Go slow, do it properly.

kre

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[Ben Campbell]

I traveled through Schipol last January. My Visa debit card (with PIN) worked 
at the human counter with the "PIN Cards Only" sign. It was later refused at a 
different station, but I think that was a matter of an untrained attendant more 
than a technology failure. (He expected a chip.)

On May 9, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 8 mei 2010, at 1:50, Glen Zorn wrote:
> 
>> More than once, I _have_ asked the driver specifically if he accepts credit
>> cards (the advertised policy notwithstanding) only to have him refuse it
>> upon arrival...
> 
> Curious way to engage in commerce. Where was this?
> 
> BTW:
> 
> I'm typing this from Schiphol airport. I just went to the train ticket 
> counter, and they have big signs posted everywhere that they only accept 
> PIN-enabled credit cards. And cash, of course. Note that on 
> http://www.ietf78.nl/ it says that the railway ticket machines accept cash, 
> but that's only barely true: only some of them do, and then only in the form 
> of coins.
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Martin Rex]

Russ Housley wrote:
> 
> From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
> expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
> IETF meeting, and that others had the opposite expectation.  Both views
> have been expressed on this thread.  Thus, an interpretation of the rule
> stated in RFC 3777 is needed.

I thought the current wording was "attending" the last 3 out of 5 IETF
Meetings, _not_ "participating".


Although I believe that the spirit is more about participation than
it is about paying a particular registration fee.


In the past, the 3-out-of-5 criteria could be met with the
"North America IETF meetings".  For 2011,2012, attending IETF meetings
in North America will no longer suffice for NomCom eligibility:

Summer 2010   Maastricht,  Netherlands (Europe)
Fall   2010   Bejing,  China   (Asia)
Spring 2011   Prague,  Czech Republic  (Europe)
Summer 2011   Quebec City, Canada  (North America)
Fall   2011   Taipei,  Taiwan  (Asia)
Spring 2012(Europe, provisional)
Summer 2012(Asia,   provisional)
Fall   2012   Atlanta, Georgia/US  (North America)


I would not be surprised if the pool of NomCom volunteers is
going to be much more affected by the upcoming meeting locations
than it would be by retroactively excluding meeting attendees
that purchased a day pass to limit their travel expenses in
an economic decline.


-Martin

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Michael Richardson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


> "todd" == todd glassey  writes:
todd> Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video
todd> conference including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both
todd> are reasonable methods of attending these days.

I also agree that we should diversify the meaning of attendance.
My preference has been essentially:
   - that to initially qualify you need something like 3 out-of-last-5
 *IN-PERSON* (and yes, I would exclude daypass)

   - but that to remain qualified, you need to attend 1 out-of-last-4
 in-person, and (remotely attend 2-out-of-last-5 OR
 author-at-least-3-revisions-of-draft).

The problem with video conferencing is that you don't get to do any of:
1) chat in hallway
2) chat at social
3) be a tourist at something you know nothing about
4) hang out in bar, and overhear something that matters
5) overhear heated debate during fight for cookies

While it is possible that you might get up at 2am to attend a video
conference version of a session you don't care about, I doubt it.

And those above things are pretty important --- it's water cooler talk,
and if you haven't experienced it, then you likely don't know what the
social context things are.

While it's true that things can change after you qualify, and video
conferencing won't tell you much about that, my hope is that the
attendance requirement will update you on that.

(I was at about 8 out of 9 meetings from 1995 to 2004, and about 1
meeting/year since 2005, having missed remote attendance completely,
once.  I blame lack of well-endowed employers, combined with a lack of
desire to fly into the US, even though those meetings are generally
cheaper for me than non-NA ones.  Currently struggling with Maastrich
decision) 

- -- 
]   He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!   |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video 
   then sign the petition. 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQEVAwUBS+hzp4CLcPvd0N1lAQKXnQf9ENRksJeX+EaPtcXLX8YOj3ynSU9NXyVk
8xHLu+7jSAtQ9aUsTqqWWU2oMHct7SLJ3EfRng3zy1ig2ve8e48WHs5hrhukCLkV
Hrb0XaJYPZIe3JSIqxtghanHHasrRjdOXFr3QEul0M4d1kKKHxmNo8hGiuqdNJ5F
zt+/kb03vN0Dfc16KhHZnin/aYx44dS+facmA8BRSh46JB7uNzc1WpTFdQDe8QR/
o89pqoS3mogL991VbxwRe09FPNux8VXGzJHQvbUN6D1Z+/OW+FGHIPQAdKI2a5jI
UcmzI6weYn1/RLBx8WP79rR7/s9PT1/1LsLgBQar4/Tc+mHuXwa+rA==
=6657
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Doug Barton]

Would it be possible to get a number from the secretariat of those who
have paid full freight for 2 of the last 5 meetings, plus used a day
pass for one or more of the other 3?

I have already asserted that the attention devoted to this so far has
exceeded that which is reasonable based on the fact that it should have
been an easy issue to deal with in the first place. I further suspect
that the number of people for whom the "exception" might need to apply
is sufficiently small as to make the level of attention even sillier.


Doug

-- 

... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[todd glassey]

On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan  wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> illness forced them to participate remotely.   I'd personally rather
>>> we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
>>> it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.
>>
>> I've already said too much in this thread, but while I might happily
>> agree with any plans to diversify the way we define "attend", we
>> simply cannot do that on anything like a permanent basis without
>> changing the relevant RFC.  So we need to separate that issue from the
>> immediate issue of who might qualify for the NomCom _this year_.  We
>> need to separate the issues because the latter is an immediate
>> practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have
>> some rule than that we have a perfect one.  Please let us not conflate
>> these two matters.

Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video conference
including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both are reasonable
methods of attending these days.

Todd Glassey

>>
> 
> Andrew's right.  Sorry for conflating the two.  For this specific issue,
> I disagree with the IESG's proposal to declare use of a day pass did
> not qualify as "attending" the IETF meeting for the purposes of
> NomCom eligibility.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

<>___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Russ Housley]

Robert:

>   | That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP.  With the IAOC conducting 
> the
>   | Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC 3777 regarding
>   | NomCom eligibility is needed.
> 
> Why?

>From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
IETF meeting, and that others had the opposite expectation.  Both views
have been expressed on this thread.  Thus, an interpretation of the rule
stated in RFC 3777 is needed.

Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Ted Hardie]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan  wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> illness forced them to participate remotely.   I'd personally rather
>> we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
>> it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.
>
> I've already said too much in this thread, but while I might happily
> agree with any plans to diversify the way we define "attend", we
> simply cannot do that on anything like a permanent basis without
> changing the relevant RFC.  So we need to separate that issue from the
> immediate issue of who might qualify for the NomCom _this year_.  We
> need to separate the issues because the latter is an immediate
> practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have
> some rule than that we have a perfect one.  Please let us not conflate
> these two matters.
>

Andrew's right.  Sorry for conflating the two.  For this specific issue,
I disagree with the IESG's proposal to declare use of a day pass did
not qualify as "attending" the IETF meeting for the purposes of
NomCom eligibility.

regards,

Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Doug Barton]

On 05/10/10 08:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> Yes, it does stink.  As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day
> Passes, in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom,
> was entirely missed by the community -- that is, by all of us.  We are
> now paying the price for that.

One could just as easily argue that there are a non-trivial number of
caring individuals who actually were aware of the issue and relied on
the simple definition of the word "attend."


Doug

-- 

... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads

Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:

> illness forced them to participate remotely.   I'd personally rather
> we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
> it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.

I've already said too much in this thread, but while I might happily
agree with any plans to diversify the way we define "attend", we
simply cannot do that on anything like a permanent basis without
changing the relevant RFC.  So we need to separate that issue from the
immediate issue of who might qualify for the NomCom _this year_.  We
need to separate the issues because the latter is an immediate
practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have
some rule than that we have a perfect one.  Please let us not conflate
these two matters.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Ted Hardie]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake  wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie  wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> We need all the volunteers we can get.
>
> I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
> maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
> concern for their level of interest. As far as I can tell, the nomcom
> worked fine in its early years when there commonly less than 50
> volunteers.

Burnout risk alone should tell you it isn't nonsense, even if you care
absolutely nothing about the diversity of volunteers available to NomCom.

The NomCom takes time and energy to do well, and if someone cares
enough about the IETF to volunteer it, turning them away because some
of their most recent experience was on day passes is silly.  I know at
least two former ADs who attended the last meeting on day passes,
and we have seen others who have not met a 3/5 rule only because
illness forced them to participate remotely.   I'd personally rather
we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.

As Dave Crocker has pointed out again and again:  the time and attention
of the participants is the biggest undocumented donation in the whole IETF
system.  We use a mechanistic way to determine whether someone is
contributing now for the purposes of NomCom eligibility, recall
petitions, and so.
It's not a great measure and narrowing it, as this proposal does, only
highlights
how poor it really is.

I understand Sam's concern about our funding, but relying on this stick
to keep us solvent within our current paradigm doesn't strike me personally
as either likely to succeed or likely to produce the best results for
the Internet
even if it does keep the org afloat without a funding change.

Just my two cents,

Ted
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Jari Arkko]

Henk,

I do agree, of course, about the likelihood of this rule matching anyone 
who actually does volunteer for Nomcom.


I do think that we should clarify the policy regardless of the small 
likelihood. Think of it as insurance against an unlikely event but with 
bad consequences (possibly long time spent in the nomcom process to 
handle such a case, questioning the legitimacy of the member selection, 
etc).


Jari

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[David Morris]

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> > > Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
> > > rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
> > > lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?
> > 
> > Because from my own experience, I've demonstrated the bar has minimal
> > correlation with the reality of exposure to the IETF.
> > 
> > Secondly, I don't see this as lowering anything but a financial bar. For
> > an open organization, minimizing the bars to participation is actually
> > a better approach.
> 
> 
> How does this trend at reducing the requirement for participation lead
> anywhere but to eventually saying that anyone may volunteer, without any
> regard for IETF experience?

All I'm really trying to highlight is that the current bar is an 
essentially meaningless measure. If participation should be measured,
and I think it should, a better measure should be defined by some 
future WG activity.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Robert Elz]

Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 12:05:07 -0400
From:Donald Eastlake 
Message-ID:  

Mostly (these days) I prefer to make one comment, then keep quiet, but
this message from Donald needs a response...

  | So, with such disagreements, someone has to settle it even if there
  | isn't a clear consensus.

Yes.

  | Pretty much all the bodies who could possibly
  | make this decision have an extremely remote but theoretically real
  | conflict.

If there is no consensus there is no change - no question it is the IESG
that gets to decide if a consensus exists (currently, that looks to me to
be a clear "no") but it shouldn't be the IESG that's creating the statement
upon which consensus is called (even if it weren't for the issue in question
here, that's another conflict of interest.)

But this ...

  | I have confidence that if there is a clear consensus that
  | day membership should count as attendance towards NOMCOM
  | qualification, the IESG will see that. But I sure don't see such a
  | consensus against the IESG suggestion so I think it is not only
  | correct but that it should stick.

is 100% totally backwards.   And why I am commenting on this issue a
second time - as this kind of thinking seems to me to have become far
to common in the IETF (I've seen signs of this in quite a few working
groups as well.).

If there is no consensus on a new proposal, the new proposal fails.

Here the IESG's suggestion is the new proposal, if there is no consensus
to adopt it, then it fails, and we remain with the rules we have now.

That rule merely requires "attendance" without saying how much attendance,
one day, two days, or more, all count as attending by any logical
interpretation of the words, so anyone who has attended 3 out of the
relevant 5 IETF meetings qualifies for nomcom - unless there is community
(rough) consensus to change that rule.

I agree with you that there is (currently) no consensus here, some people
like the IESG proposal, others don't - that's "no consensus", hence "no
change" - but "no change" means RFC3777 remains as written, not the IESG
suggestion fails to be defeated.

The IETF community as a whole needs to be watchful for (and reject) this
kind of thinking everywhere - another place I have see it is where a
"design team" (or just draft author) writes some text, and the WG discusses
some part of that, then eventually the WG chair (assumed correctly here)
decides that there's no consensus on some issue - unfortunately, often
that's been interpreted as "no consensus to change the design team proposal"
which is flat out wrong - if there's no consensus the existing state of the
world remains - which means (in this postulated example) the design team
proposal fails (on at least that one point), not that it remains as written.

That is, we must stop asking "do we have consensus to change this proposal"
and instead ask "do we have consensus to accept this proposal", the latter
certainly makes it harder to get things done, but the former is far to easily
open to abuse.

And then, since I am here anyway ...

Russ Housley  said:

  | However, your suggestion is not practical.  If there was a WG that could
  | weigh in on this topic, then that would have been done, but there is not an
  | existing WG with the charter to consider this issue.

Agree with all of that, except "not practical".   See below.

 | RFC 3777 was drafted by a WG, Last Called, and then approved by the IESG.

Yes - that is, the IESG determined that there was community consensus to
support 3777, that's fine.

  | That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP.  With the IAOC conducting the
  | Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC 3777 regarding
  | NomCom eligibility is needed.

Why?

What is the problem supposed to be?

The Last Call certainly gives no clue, all it says is ...

The IAOC is conducting a day pass
experiment, making it necessary to augment the NomCom eligibility rules
to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass.

which makes no sense to me.   3777 doesn't say anything about "fully paid
attendance" or "attended for 5 days" or anything else, all it says is
"attended" - there is no obvious need to change it because of the day pass
experiment that I can see.

It has never been true that everyone who paid to attend an IETF meeting
(in the time before "day passes") attended all N days of the meeting, and
I cannot believe that either the authors of 3777, nor the community at
large, ever thought that they did.   It has always been that some people
only attended a very short part of the meeting - yet 3777 was content to
just say "attended" without attempting to require any accounting of
attendance records (beyond merely having attended).   I don't see that
reducing the financial burden upon some of those (short term) attendees
changes anything of significance, does it?

Certainly it is possible that the community might believe that the
current eligibility rules nee

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[SM]

At 10:12 AM 5/7/2010, John C Klensin wrote:

To the extent to which we want to open this can of worms (or are
forced into it by necessity), there is a second "fundamental
'constitutional' difference" here.  As I read BCP 101, it is
pretty clear that the IAOC (or IASA generally) are forbidden to
make policy or carry out experiments whose implications extend
beyond the financial/administrative.   If I recall, the IAOC


The IAOC is the body that deals with financial and administrative 
matters.  Decisions taken by the IAOC indirectly affect policy.  It's 
up to the IAOC to see that it does not cross the policy line or else 
it will cause other problems.



decided to initiate the "day pass" experiment using exactly the
model you describe above: the community was asked for input and
then the IAOC made the decision based on the IAOC's preferences.
I assume that no one thought of the Nomcom implications despite
the presence of the IAB Chair and IETF Chair and some IAB and
IESG-appointed representatives on the IAOC -- people whose role
is presumably to catch just such things.  But, if there is a
constitutional process issue here, it extends well beyond the
IESG issuing a process clarification about the implications of
an experiment.


Didn't the IPR WG make a similar mistake?  The lesson to be learned 
is that even if the community is asked for input, some problems only 
come to light during the implementation phase.  We can ask why the 
representatives mentioned above didn't point to a possible problem 
with the experiment.  But that won't solve the problem.


The various BCPs do not specify who is the "authority" to address the 
problem.  The IETF can ignore the process and come up with a 
solution.   Henk Uijterwaal commented on the numbers and asked 
whether it is worth solving the problem.  Jari Arkko mentioned that a 
statement can be treated as the usual documents.  The "process" 
followed by this Last Call is as follows:


 1. The IESG discussed about the statement.  The draft statement 
represents the view of the IESG.


 2. The IESG starts a Last Call.  We already know that the IESG is 
in favor of this statement.


 3. The IESG decides that the statement can be adopted as that seems 
to be the community consensus.


Some twit (yours truly) opposes the statement.  The twit explores the 
options available.


 (i) An appeal is filed.  That's not really a good course of action 
given Items 1 and 3.


 (ii) Assuming eligibility for NomCom, a random number generator is 
used to select an IESG member for a Recall petition.


Option 2 could serve as a reminder to IETF-related bodies not to 
cross the line.  If we consider this issue as one about the 
"constitutional" process, we will be leaning towards that option.


Regards,
-sm 


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Dave CROCKER]

On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?


Because from my own experience, I've demonstrated the bar has minimal
correlation with the reality of exposure to the IETF.

Secondly, I don't see this as lowering anything but a financial bar. For
an open organization, minimizing the bars to participation is actually
a better approach.



How does this trend at reducing the requirement for participation lead anywhere 
but to eventually saying that anyone may volunteer, without any regard for IETF 
experience?



d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[David Morris]

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
> rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
> lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?

Because from my own experience, I've demonstrated the bar has minimal
correlation with the reality of exposure to the IETF.

Secondly, I don't see this as lowering anything but a financial bar. For 
an open organization, minimizing the bars to participation is actually
a better approach.

If the objective is to provide multiple tier participation, like some
country clubs, then be upfront and offer payment of a participation fee as
an open alternative.  Say $3000 in lieu of meeting attendance and
$15000 to bypass the random selection associated with Nomcom memmbership
and say $100,000 for direct appointment to the IESG?

If someone truly believes they are qualified to serve on the NomCom with
a day pass rather than full meeting fee, and is willing to sign up for the 
work, etc. The are likely to be as helpful to the process as some of the
very contentious, well established long term participants who happen to
have the 3 full paid meeting requirement met.


Dave Morris
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Donald Eastlake]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie  wrote:
>
> ...
>
> We need all the volunteers we can get.

I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
concern for their level of interest. As far as I can tell, the nomcom
worked fine in its early years when there commonly less than 50
volunteers. We want people willing to put in the time and effort
required. I've never understood why some nomcom chairs worry so much
if their volunteer pool is a bit smaller than the previous year's or
make statements based on the assumption that there is a strong
correlation between the quality of a nomcom's work and the percentage
of those qualified who volunteer to be members.

Donald
(A former nomcom voter and nomcom chair recently self-funding my IETF
attendance)

> Just my two cents,
>
> Ted Hardie
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Dave CROCKER]

On 5/10/2010 10:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

While it is certainly true that we can craft arguments for either
interpretation, I don't personally find the arguments for the narrow
interpretation all that compelling.  If we have to err, let's err on the
side of inclusiveness.


Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at rendering 
judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why lowering the bar 
helps produce better leadership selection?


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Sam Hartman]

I fairly strongly support the IESG's proposed policy statement on the
day pass experiment.  I specifically belive that it is counter to our
ability to fund our ongoing activities to turn the day pass experiment
into a way to reduce the cost of attending IETF on an ongoing basis.  We
want to do what we can to keep the day pass as a mechanism for bringing
in new people and discourage its use for existing participants who want
to save a buck.  (This from someone whose last few IETFs have been
self-funded.)

I agree with the IESG's reasoning that members who have not committed to
the IETF on an ongoing basis don't make good nomcom members.  For these
and other reasons I support the IESG's statement.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Ted Hardie]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Joel M. Halpern  wrote:
> This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as reasonable
> folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect conclusions) for someone
> using the day pass program to assume that said attendance would count.
> While some people have asserted that they find it obvious that it should
> count, other people (myself included) do not find it at all obvious.
>
> As far as I can tell, the rules do not tell us whether the day passes should
> or should not count.  As Dave Crocker said, we have to make a choice.  And
> either choice is going to be an error relative to some people's
> understanding of the rules.
> One can craft arguments for making either error.

While it is certainly true that we can craft arguments for either
interpretation, I don't personally find the arguments for the narrow
interpretation all that compelling.  If we have to err, let's err on the
side of inclusiveness.   We can craft rules that narrow things in
the future, but we should not do so for those meetings which
have already taken place.


Disenfranchisement for those meetings where someone has already made the
calculus of how much to attend seems likely to leave a bad taste in
the mouth of at least some participants, and that may discourage
them from being NomCom volunteers, both now and in the future.
We need all the volunteers we can get.
Just my two cents,

Ted Hardie

>
> Personally, I would prefer to stick with the narrower ruling, matching the
> proposed text from the IESG, until we either have a permanent day pass
> program, with rules suitably defined, or do not have any more day passes to
> deal with.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> Samuel Weiler wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010, The IESG wrote:
>>
>>> The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
>>> sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
>>> qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.
>>
>> Opposed.  (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass.  I have served on
>> NomCom.)
>>
>> Even if it were reasonable to do this prospectively (e.g. future day
>> passes don't count), it's not particularly fair those the few (like Kurt)
>> who may be disenfranchised by applying this retrospectively.
>> Day passes used to date should count.  Period.
>>
>> As for the future, I find a flaw in the IESG's logic above.  Indeed, a
>> single day of one physical meeting is not enough to learn the culture. But
>> we're still requiring three separate meetings.  And it's not as though we're
>> insisting that those who pay for the week stay for the week.
>>
>> And then there's the long-term-participant-with-reduced-funding issue. If
>> such a person maximally used day passes for a year or two, I can see them
>> still having enough grasp on the culture to participate effectively in
>> NomCom.
>>
>> -- Sam
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Joel M. Halpern]

This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as 
reasonable folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect 
conclusions) for someone using the day pass program to assume that said 
attendance would count.
While some people have asserted that they find it obvious that it should 
count, other people (myself included) do not find it at all obvious.


As far as I can tell, the rules do not tell us whether the day passes 
should or should not count.  As Dave Crocker said, we have to make a 
choice.  And either choice is going to be an error relative to some 
people's understanding of the rules.

One can craft arguments for making either error.

Personally, I would prefer to stick with the narrower ruling, matching 
the proposed text from the IESG, until we either have a permanent day 
pass program, with rules suitably defined, or do not have any more day 
passes to deal with.


Yours,
Joel


Samuel Weiler wrote:

On Thu, 6 May 2010, The IESG wrote:


The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.


Opposed.  (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass.  I have served on 
NomCom.)


Even if it were reasonable to do this prospectively (e.g. future day 
passes don't count), it's not particularly fair those the few (like 
Kurt) who may be disenfranchised by applying this retrospectively.

Day passes used to date should count.  Period.

As for the future, I find a flaw in the IESG's logic above.  Indeed, a 
single day of one physical meeting is not enough to learn the culture. 
But we're still requiring three separate meetings.  And it's not as 
though we're insisting that those who pay for the week stay for the week.


And then there's the long-term-participant-with-reduced-funding issue. 
If such a person maximally used day passes for a year or two, I can see 
them still having enough grasp on the culture to participate effectively 
in NomCom.


-- Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Dave CROCKER]

On 5/10/2010 9:43 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

Personally, I think the right answer might be some kind of "attendance
coefficient" based not just on "last N meetings attended" but on
overall attendance record (and by implication knowledge of the IETF).


This is a very nice example of taking the current problem and looking for a way 
to make an underlying, relatively simple change that happens to cover the 
current problem... while also making things more robust.


We already have a version of what you describe, namely the 3-of-5 rule (which 
was changed, I believe, from 2-of-3.)


Rather than our having a rule based on two fixed attendance numbers, you are 
suggesting using a derivative rule for proportion.  This makes the qualification 
generally more robust, where the possible anomaly of a Day Pass is covered 
almost as a side-effect.


(Kurt's latest posting suggests something that is, I think, entirely orthogonal 
to Ole's suggestion.)




It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a simple formula for the
coefficient and setting the threshold, but I have no doubt that we
could over-engineer that process too :-)


Your use of "could" is amusing, as if there were any doubt possible.

But seriously, a justified high cost of discussing this will be considering what 
it is that attendance ensures and how much of it is 'required' to be a useful 
Nomcom participant.


And folks think credit cards and taxis are a rat hole...

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts (File Transfer Protocol HOST Command) to Proposed Standard

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, 12 April, 2010 12:44 -0700 The IESG
 wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
> to consider  the following document:
> 
> - 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command '
> as a Proposed
> Standard
>...

IESG,

This draft is much improved from prior versions, and the
explanations of why adding a new, pre-authentication, command
is needed are appreciated.  There are other possibilities,
however, that do not increase the number of turnarounds or add
to the complexity of the command.   For example, one could
either create some syntax within the USER command if the
extension were advertised so that one would have 
 USER userid virtual-host-id
 PASS ...
 ACCT ...
(possibly with some other delimiter) or one could, with such
an option, replace USER entirely, e.g., 
 UHST userid virtual-host-id
 etc.

This leads to a more general point, which I think is the main
issue with this and the other FTP proposals that are at various
points in the pipe.  FTP is our oldest applications protocol
that is still in active use.  It was rather carefully designed.
It is not HTTP and retrofitting HTTP syntax and concepts into
it is not obviously the right thing to do.

If we are going to start adding features to FTP, it seems to me
that we need a strategy and to make design decisions: lots of
little commands with four-letter names and single-token syntax
versus a smaller number of more complex commands versus
extending (or, in the words of the authors, "overloading")
existing commands.  Those decisions should not -- cannot -- be
made by processing one command extension at a time, with each
one reflecting the taste and assumptions of its authors in
different ways.

It seems to me that we need a WG or some other mechanism for
establishing and determining community consensus around basic
design principles for FTP extensions.  If the IESG then wants
to process individual extensions as individual submissions,
that would be fine, but let's first at least establish a
framework for evaluating them.

   thanks,
 john




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Samuel Weiler]

On Thu, 6 May 2010, The IESG wrote:


The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.


Opposed.  (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass.  I have served on 
NomCom.)


Even if it were reasonable to do this prospectively (e.g. future day 
passes don't count), it's not particularly fair those the few (like 
Kurt) who may be disenfranchised by applying this retrospectively.

Day passes used to date should count.  Period.

As for the future, I find a flaw in the IESG's logic above.  Indeed, a 
single day of one physical meeting is not enough to learn the culture. 
But we're still requiring three separate meetings.  And it's not as 
though we're insisting that those who pay for the week stay for the 
week.


And then there's the long-term-participant-with-reduced-funding issue. 
If such a person maximally used day passes for a year or two, I can 
see them still having enough grasp on the culture to participate 
effectively in NomCom.


-- Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Edward Lewis]

At 23:51 -0500 5/6/10, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

Dear IESG,

I'm conflicted on this one.


That's a statement I can agree with.  Superficially, it seems to make 
sense that 20% (1 day of 5) doesn't count.  But...


As others have said - paying full fare and attending one day vs. 
buying a day pass only means more money being spent.  In 1998 I've 
even done a 1-day attendance having paid the full fare because of 
scheduling conflicts.  Came, made two presentations, attended 
probably the first DNSSEC deployment meeting (at lunch), and left. 
Had to fly (US) coast-to-coast too.


What does it mean to understand the culture of the IETF?  And does 
that have to come with physical presence at a meeting?  You can get a 
lot of it via the mail lists.  If you know where 3 of 5 IETFs are 
located, you pretty much have to be tuned in.


Nomcom requires a lot of time and effort, especially in the way the 
IETF runs the process.  It's pretty far-fetched to imagine someone 
who "can't spell IESG"

 - volunteer for nomcom
 - get selected via the random process
 - and then have much of a detrimental impact (which is what we are afraid of)
 - for the duration of the nomcom process

In the end, I think that the new policy is a case of "over specification."
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStarYou can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Discussing IPv4 address policy is like deciding what to eat on the Titanic.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Ole Jacobsen]

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Yes, it does stink.  As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day Passes,
> in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom, was entirely
> missed by the community -- that is, by all of us.  We are now paying the price
> for that.
> 

But as engineers, this should come as no surprise to us. How many 
times have you experienced "major consequences" as the result of
a "minor fix" in "some other part" of the system? I've certainly seen
it too many times to count, and the combination of engineering and 
governance doesn't make it any less likely to happen.

Personally, I think the right answer might be some kind of "attendance 
coefficient" based not just on "last N meetings attended" but on 
overall attendance record (and by implication knowledge of the IETF).

So, in your case, having attended I am guessing 50 - 60 meetings or 
more, your coefficient would be very high even if you decided to go 
cheap on us and use the day pass for 5 meetings in a row.

It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a simple formula for the 
coefficient and setting the threshold, but I have no doubt that we
could over-engineer that process too :-)

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht (morphed to cabbies and credit cards)

[Steven Bellovin]

On May 10, 2010, at 11:54 52AM, Bob Braden wrote:

> Is there no bottom to this particular rat hole?  Enough, already!
> 
> 
We first have to discuss if the credit cards have to be in ASCII vs. HTML or 
PDF.


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Kurt Zeilenga]

On May 10, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> The nature of that price -- besides the pain of this discussion -- is going 
> to be retroactive enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of some attendees.  
> Either way, that's pretty egregious. But since Day Passes have been handled 
> pretty transparently, all along, it does appear to be an error we all share.

Given that day passes have not been in existence long, it is more likely that 
the change would cause undue disenfranchisement than no change would cause 
undue enfranchisement.

If the new policy were to state the change does not go into effect until after 
this summer's NOMCOM's selection, there the undue 
disenfranchisement/enfranchisement issues would be minimized.

-- Kurt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Donald Eastlake]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga  wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not 
> consider the NOMCOM ramifications.  If I had, I think it would likely that I 
> would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.

I agree here.

> I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but 
> a change to the BCP.   Applying such changes retroactively stinks.

I disagree here for the reasons I've already posted.

So, with such disagreements, someone has to settle it even if there
isn't a clear consensus. Pretty much all the bodies who could possibly
make this decision have an extremely remote but theoretically real
conflict. I have confidence that if there is a clear consensus that
day membership should count as attendance towards NOMCOM
qualification, the IESG will see that. But I sure don't see such a
consensus against the IESG suggestion so I think it is not only
correct but that it should stick.

Donald

> So, I guess I won't have NOMCOM eligible this year (due to the change, 
> assuming I attend the next IETF under a full registration).
>
> -- Kurt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Russ Housley]

Robert:

I'd like to share my thoughts about your comments.  First, I want to say
that I mostly agree with you.  However, your suggestion is not
practical.  If there was a WG that could weigh in on this topic, then
that would have been done, but there is not an existing WG with the
charter to consider this issue.

RFC 3777 was drafted by a WG, Last Called, and then approved by the
IESG.  That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP.  With the IAOC
conducting the Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC
3777 regarding NomCom eligibility is needed.  This point was raised at
the last plenary, and the whole community heard many opinions about the
right way to proceed.  Given that discussion as input, an interpretation
was drafted in the form of an IESG statement.  An Internet-Draft could
have been generated, but the next steps would not have been different.
That is, Last Call is the point where the community gets to tell the
IESG if they are going in the right direction or not.  That is where we
are right now.

Russ

On 5/7/2010 7:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
>   | The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
>   | Experiment.  The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
>   | a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
>   | action.
> 
> I have two (different types of) comments to make.First, and most
> important by far, is WTF ???   I understand the need for IESG "Statements"
> from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be making such
> statements about is the process by which the IESG (and more of course) is
> selected - if there was anything about which there's an obvious and clear
> conflict of interest, it is this.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Dave CROCKER]

On 5/10/2010 8:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:


I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but
a change to the BCP.   Applying such changes retroactively stinks.



Yes, it does stink.  As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day Passes, 
in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom, was entirely 
missed by the community -- that is, by all of us.  We are now paying the price 
for that.


The nature of that price -- besides the pain of this discussion -- is going to 
be retroactive enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of some attendees.  Either 
way, that's pretty egregious.  But since Day Passes have been handled pretty 
transparently, all along, it does appear to be an error we all share.


The question, now, is how to best handle it.  This requires juggling a number of 
constraints and requirements.  For example, it makes no sense to create 
long-term, complex rules, for handling a short-term issue, even if that creates 
unfairness for a few attendees.  (Specialized rules for handling transient, 
near-term issues is bad protocol design and bad political process design.)


With respect to Nomcom, we are talking about the core, constitutional process in 
the IETF, namely the selection of the folk who exert control over the operation 
of the organization.  Anything we decide now needs to hold the quality of that 
effort as prime, IMO.


Stated rather baldly, I think we will be faced with either /in/cluding some folk 
who have even less IETF knowledge than we've previously required, or with 
/ex/cluding some folk who have plenty of IETF experience, but happened to use a 
Day Pass.  (Anyone hearing echoes of the phrase "Type I versus Type II errors" 
is listening to the correct, heuristic song.)


If we resolve this with simple, principled rules, we can at least make the 
injustice transient, while the longer-term issues are made reasonable and 
appropriate.


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht (morphed to cabbies and credit cards)

[Bob Braden]

Is there no bottom to this particular rat hole?  Enough, already!

Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Ross Callon]

I think your email (below) argues quite eloquently for why it doesn't matter a 
whole lot what the statement says. As you point out, this is not likely to make 
a difference regarding who is actually selected for nomcom. I don't think that 
we know whether or not there would be *anybody* effected by this (and I would 
prefer to figure out what the rule should be without knowing who, if anyone, 
would be effected -- since I don't want the choice of rule to come down to a 
popularity contest on the people effected, if any). 

However, my understanding is that a chair should be appointed in the next month 
or two for the next nomcom, and that at that point the process will begin to 
pick the voting members. When this process begins, it seems highly desirable to 
have precise rules regarding who is eligible and who is not. 

Thus to me the point is not to have the best possible rule -- I don't think 
that "best possible" is well defined in this case. The point is to have clearly 
defined rules so that he process can go forward. 

Ross 

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk 
Uijterwaal
Sent: 10 May 2010 04:53
Cc: IETF; IESG
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment


I disagree with this policy action.

Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be
eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14
(attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program) but not under the modified
version.  And then, we have not factored in that traditionally
only some 10% of the people eligible to volunteer for the nomcom,
actually volunteers (and only a few out those, are actually selected).
Further, of the non-daypass attendees, some 40% says that they did
not attend the full week but skipped one or more days from the
program.

If we add this all up, I'd estimate that there is about a 10% chance
that one of the people on the 2010-2011 nomcom attended 2 full meetings
plus 1 day of either Anaheim or Hiroshima, as compared to the other
nomcom members who attended 3 full meetings.  Can somebody explain
to me what the problem that we are trying to solve here is?

The IAOC has always said that the day-pass experiment will be evaluated
after a couple of meetings.  This has started and we plan to show data
and a way forward in Maastricht.  What we have also said that if the
experiment was turned into a regular feature, we'd review all documents
for attendence requirements and come up with a proposal how to
modify them.  This is still the case.

In short, I fail to see the need for a policy statement at this time.

Henk
(for himself, not necessarily for the full IAOC)



-- 
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre  http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096  Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam  1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746
--

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Kurt Zeilenga]

On May 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
> meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
> would count for the Nomcom qualification or not.  But nothing
> prevented a person in that position from asking the question
> before he or she registered, in which case we would,
> appropriately, have had this discussion prior to Anaheim.

Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not 
consider the NOMCOM ramifications.  If I had, I think it would likely that I 
would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.

I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but a 
change to the BCP.   Applying such changes retroactively stinks.

So, I guess I won't have NOMCOM eligible this year (due to the change, assuming 
I attend the next IETF under a full registration).

-- Kurt
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[David Morris]

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> 
> > I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
> > credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
> > cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
> > when customers pay by credit cards.
> 
> And that's why credit cards are so evil. I understand there are often
> provisions that sellers can't charge a premium for credit card payments
> to make up for the commission so in places where creditcards are common
> EVERYONE pays more because of credit card commissions.

Worth noting in this context ... in many/most/all US cities, cab fares are
regulated ... that would tend to not provide the cab driver/company with
the ability to compensate for the CC fee with higher rates and might make
them less happy about taking cards.

Also, in one case where I used a card, the transaction was handled over
the cab's radio to the dispatcher ... not something that made me happy.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Eric Burger]

IMHO, the issue is not that one does not get the flavor of the IETF by only 
attending for a day.  I would offer it is that prospective nomcom members would 
miss out on the experiences of (1) formal community feedback from scheduled 
meetings during the IETF meetings and (2) informal community feedback from 
hallway, bar, and references (I don't know her, but he does - go talk to him).  
These are, again IMHO, critical experiences for prospective and nominated 
nomcom members to have.  That does not happen in a day or two of meetings.

Therefore, I support the IESG position.



Whatever the community wants...

On May 6, 2010, at 6:07 PM, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
> Experiment.  The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
> a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
> action.  Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing
> lists by 2010-05-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
> i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> = = = = = = = =
> 
> RFC 3777 requires that voting members of the nominating committee
> (NomCom) be selected from volunteers that have attended at least three
> of the last five IETF meetings.  The IAOC is conducting a day pass
> experiment, making it necessary to augment the NomCom eligibility rules
> to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass.  An update to
> RFC 3777 to will be needed to address this situation if at the end of
> the experiment the IAOC decides to make day passes a regular meeting
> registration alternative; however, a BCP update for an experiment is
> overkill.
> 
> The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
> sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
> qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.  Further, ongoing
> exposure to the IETF standards process is necessary to appreciate the
> significance and importance of cross-area review.
> 
> The eligibility requirements of volunteers for NomCom voting member
> positions are provided in RFC 3777, which includes:
> 
>   14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
>   the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
> 
> In the context of the day pass experiment, this is interpreted to mean:
> 
>   14. IETF participants must have attended at least 3 of the last 5
>   IETF meetings in order to volunteer, and that use of a day pass
>   does not count as IETF meeting attendance.
> ___
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> ietf-annou...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:29 -0700 Dave CROCKER
 wrote:

> There is a rather fundamental "constitutional" difference
> between having the IESG assess community rough consensus,
> versus having the IESG ask for input and then make the
> decision based on IESG preferences.  In the first, the formal
> authority resides with the community; in the second it resides
> with the IESG.

To the extent to which we want to open this can of worms (or are
forced into it by necessity), there is a second "fundamental
'constitutional' difference" here.  As I read BCP 101, it is
pretty clear that the IAOC (or IASA generally) are forbidden to
make policy or carry out experiments whose implications extend
beyond the financial/administrative.   If I recall, the IAOC
decided to initiate the "day pass" experiment using exactly the
model you describe above: the community was asked for input and
then the IAOC made the decision based on the IAOC's preferences.
I assume that no one thought of the Nomcom implications despite
the presence of the IAB Chair and IETF Chair and some IAB and
IESG-appointed representatives on the IAOC -- people whose role
is presumably to catch just such things.  But, if there is a
constitutional process issue here, it extends well beyond the
IESG issuing a process clarification about the implications of
an experiment.

And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
would count for the Nomcom qualification or not.  But nothing
prevented a person in that position from asking the question
before he or she registered, in which case we would,
appropriately, have had this discussion prior to Anaheim.


> Again, I'm not suggesting that a working group is necessary.
> There isn't that much to discuss.

Agreed.
john




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[Marshall Eubanks]

On May 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

I think it's really all about the credit card fees.  Cab drivers, at  
least in the US, are often on a small enough margin, with high fixed  
costs, that the few percent taken by the card companies can be the  
difference between a worthwhile and a wasted fare.  Next time a  
cabbie doesn't want your card, offer him 10% more and watch him  
change his tune.




There is also a big difference in my experience between cabs that have  
wireless card readers / verifies (as do the Dulles Airport - IAD -  
taxis here in DC) and those that run credit cards through a paper  
imprinter. I have, for example, never gotten any push back in paying  
for a Dulles cab by card since they got the readers. The taxis without  
a reader tend to resist using a card.


The last IETF in Minneapolis I took a cab to the airport, had no cash  
and paid by credit card with a paper imprint. The charge did not  
appear until about 6 months later, so someone (the taxi driver or at  
least his company) effectively floated my ride for 6 months. I can  
understand them pushing back if it means a delay in their income.


Regards
Marshall


On May 9, 2010, at 11:01 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:


On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 06:31:14PM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:


I have had cab drivers in the US try to force me to pay cash
in similar situations. Saying they don't accept credit cards and
then, when I say that's all I have, telling me how much longer
it will take to get me out of their cab if I really want to use
a credit card. In these cases I just kept insisting on the card
and eventually (like, within a minute) all was settled the way I
wanted it to be settled: with the credit card.

It may seem anachronistic to some, but the rule of law does
apply in the US today and asking to have a police officer settle
the dispute is a good way of getting quick resolution. If all
else fails maybe taking a picture or two (driver and taxi permit)
with a camera phone might tend to elicit a change of attitude.


I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
when customers pay by credit cards.  After learning that, I've
generally tried to pay cash when I can, and if I really have to pay  
by

credit card, I'll give a bigger tip as compensation.

- Ted
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[Nathaniel Borenstein]

I think it's really all about the credit card fees.  Cab drivers, at least in 
the US, are often on a small enough margin, with high fixed costs, that the few 
percent taken by the card companies can be the difference between a worthwhile 
and a wasted fare.  Next time a cabbie doesn't want your card, offer him 10% 
more and watch him change his tune.


On May 9, 2010, at 11:01 PM, ty...@mit.edu wrote:

> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 06:31:14PM -0700, Dan Harkins wrote:
>> 
>>  I have had cab drivers in the US try to force me to pay cash
>> in similar situations. Saying they don't accept credit cards and
>> then, when I say that's all I have, telling me how much longer
>> it will take to get me out of their cab if I really want to use
>> a credit card. In these cases I just kept insisting on the card
>> and eventually (like, within a minute) all was settled the way I
>> wanted it to be settled: with the credit card.
>> 
>>  It may seem anachronistic to some, but the rule of law does
>> apply in the US today and asking to have a police officer settle
>> the dispute is a good way of getting quick resolution. If all
>> else fails maybe taking a picture or two (driver and taxi permit)
>> with a camera phone might tend to elicit a change of attitude.
> 
> I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
> credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
> cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
> when customers pay by credit cards.  After learning that, I've
> generally tried to pay cash when I can, and if I really have to pay by
> credit card, I'll give a bigger tip as compensation.
> 
>   - Ted
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[Donald Eastlake]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
 wrote:
> On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
>
>> I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
>> credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
>> cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
>> when customers pay by credit cards.
>
> And that's why credit cards are so evil. I understand there are often 
> provisions that sellers can't charge a premium for credit card payments to 
> make up for the commission so in places where creditcards are common EVERYONE 
> pays more because of credit card commissions.

While there might be special rules for taxis and while in the USA most
credit card merchant agreements prohibit adding a surcharge for using
a credit card, they do not prohibit giving a discount for cash.

Donald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[Steven Bellovin]

On May 10, 2010, at 5:05 52AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> 
>> I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
>> credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
>> cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
>> when customers pay by credit cards.
> 
> And that's why credit cards are so evil. I understand there are often 
> provisions that sellers can't charge a premium for credit card payments to 
> make up for the commission so in places where creditcards are common EVERYONE 
> pays more because of credit card commissions.

On the other hand, according to the NY Times taxi drivers in New York have 
found that accepting credit cards (required by law in the city) has helped 
their business and their bottom line: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/nyregion/08taxi.html


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[tytso]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05:52AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
> 
> > I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
> > credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
> > cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
> > when customers pay by credit cards.
> 
> And that's why credit cards are so evil. I understand there are
> often provisions that sellers can't charge a premium for credit card
> payments to make up for the commission so in places where
> creditcards are common EVERYONE pays more because of credit card
> commissions.

It's worse than the standard "credit card banks charge a percentage".
Apparently the service that provides the TV screen with GPS monitoring
(and which gets revenue from the advertising shown on said TV screen)
is charging substantially more (2x to 3x) than what the percentage
would be if the Taxi cab driver were to use his own bank's credit card
clearing service; but the way the system is set up, he has to use the
one which is installed in his cab.

Anyway, Taxi cabs are a regulated monopoly, so the State gets to set
the rules, but do have some understanding if the taxi cab drivers
growl a bit before accepting the credit card.  (This is at least in
Boston; YMMV in different cities.)

- Ted

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Advance travel info for IETF-78 Maastricht

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 10 mei 2010, at 5:01, ty...@mit.edu wrote:

> I talked to a cab driver in Boston, and he's not very happy with
> credit cards, because he was forced to use a new system for credit
> cards, and it takes what he considered an unfairly large percentage
> when customers pay by credit cards.

And that's why credit cards are so evil. I understand there are often 
provisions that sellers can't charge a premium for credit card payments to make 
up for the commission so in places where creditcards are common EVERYONE pays 
more because of credit card commissions.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

[Henk Uijterwaal]

I disagree with this policy action.

Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be
eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14
(attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program) but not under the modified
version.  And then, we have not factored in that traditionally
only some 10% of the people eligible to volunteer for the nomcom,
actually volunteers (and only a few out those, are actually selected).
Further, of the non-daypass attendees, some 40% says that they did
not attend the full week but skipped one or more days from the
program.

If we add this all up, I'd estimate that there is about a 10% chance
that one of the people on the 2010-2011 nomcom attended 2 full meetings
plus 1 day of either Anaheim or Hiroshima, as compared to the other
nomcom members who attended 3 full meetings.  Can somebody explain
to me what the problem that we are trying to solve here is?

The IAOC has always said that the day-pass experiment will be evaluated
after a couple of meetings.  This has started and we plan to show data
and a way forward in Maastricht.  What we have also said that if the
experiment was turned into a regular feature, we'd review all documents
for attendence requirements and come up with a proposal how to
modify them.  This is still the case.

In short, I fail to see the need for a policy statement at this time.

Henk
(for himself, not necessarily for the full IAOC)



--
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre  http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096  Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam  1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746
--

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf