Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Just one point on this issue. Please do not write a policy that says 'part attendance method X does not qualify'. Instead write one that says that a full on-site attendance pass is required to qualify. Otherwise we risk having to keep on carving out one-off exceptions and may end up with the exception still in the policy long after the one day passes are gone. ___ 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)
On 10.05.2010 18:44, Steven Bellovin wrote: 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. Even cab drivers nowadays know that the character encoding (ASCII vs UTF-8 vs EBCDIC) and the file format (text/plain, application/xhtml+xml, ...) are orthogonal issues... Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I have attended exactly 70 out of 77 IETF meetings. Assuming the perfect coefficient to be 1 (77/77) mine is 70 / 77 = 0.909090909 (is that really recurring ???) And having mostly been good about volunteering, the system has picked me twice in 24 years, keeping in mind that we did not have nomcoms etc in the early days and that we used to all fit in one room. 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 On Tue, 11 May 2010, Eliot Lear wrote: > Although I disagree with Don's position overall because I do believe we need > to be more inclusive as a matter of principle, I may agree with him on this > one point, because for the MANY years or so that I was eligible for the > NOMCOM, the random process never chose me. And chose a bunch of people > multiple times. How many times did it pick Ole? Man... > > Which by the way leaves me feeling disenfranchised. I've written numerous > RFCs, chaired two working groups, one research group, and yet have had little > say as to our leadership. I think that's wrong. > > Eliot > > ___ 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)
On May 10, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > 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. There you have it, folks: clear evidence of the IETF's irrational and unfair bias against EBCDIC. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:30 -0400 From:Donald Eastlake Message-ID: | 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. It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit higher 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, attend. There is no criteria to pick up any badges, do anything for a week (incidentally, do you mean to exclude all the people who fly home Thursday evening and don't stay for the Friday sessions?_, ever walk in the hallway, or go to the bar, or even a single working group meeting or plenary. Just attend (ie: be there, and perhaps, pay.) That is what is in 3777. You might not like it, you might even be right, but to change it, as you say, you need a full WG process, not just an IESG statement. The IAOC experiment just changes payment options, it doe not automatically cause anyone to attend less, or more, than they would have otherwise, or to experience any more or less of the "IETF culture". I cannot even begin to imagine how this is relevant to nomcom selection. Would an IESG statement that limited nomcom participation to those who paid the full fee, and exclude those who used early bird (cheaper) registration be just as acceptable to you as this one? (Or the reverse if you prefer, accept only those who were committed enough to the IETF to pay well in advance, and exclude those who turned up at the last minute?) If no, why not - it (either) is exactly the same kind of "clarification" ? Anything like this requires WG consideration. For this year we just leave it like it is where "attends" is "attends" and counts anyone who was there, paid or unpaid, day pass, early bird, student rate, or full fee (or snuck in). For sometime beyond this year (and maybe even next year) the whole issue, with a whole range of possible changes, can be considered by a WG that would not be constrained to "take this or leave it" as we currently have. kre ps: all the questions as to what qualifications are required of a noomcom volunteer, how big the pool should be, ... are all fine topics to discuss - in a WG created to discuss those issues - none are relevant now - that you'd even consider making an argument on those lines means that you're accepting that the IESG "statement" is in fact a change - you support it because you think it is a good change, while at the same time opposing any other change (that you like less) as requiring a WG process. That's unacceptable. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On 5/11/10 4:02 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Although I disagree with Don's position overall because I do believe we > need to be more inclusive as a matter of principle, I may agree with him > on this one point, because for the MANY years or so that I was eligible > for the NOMCOM, the random process never chose me. And chose a bunch of > people multiple times. How many times did it pick Ole? Man... > > Which by the way leaves me feeling disenfranchised. I've written > numerous RFCs, chaired two working groups, one research group, and yet > have had little say as to our leadership. I think that's wrong. Perhaps we need a nomcom for nominating people for the nomcom. :) I mean that semi-seriously. We're trying to measure something vague (familiarity with the IETF) using a blunt measure (number of meetings attended in the last ~2 years). There are bound to be misalignments. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Although I disagree with Don's position overall because I do believe we need to be more inclusive as a matter of principle, I may agree with him on this one point, because for the MANY years or so that I was eligible for the NOMCOM, the random process never chose me. And chose a bunch of people multiple times. How many times did it pick Ole? Man... Which by the way leaves me feeling disenfranchised. I've written numerous RFCs, chaired two working groups, one research group, and yet have had little say as to our leadership. I think that's wrong. Eliot On 5/11/10 3:29 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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 Either way the IESG decides to go on this for this round of nomcom eligibility will be fine I think given the circumstances. But I tend to think Ted is right about this. We've done the day passes for two meetings? With how many people taking advantage of it? And how many people taking advantage of it more than once? It seems that the downside of the perception of not being inclusive is greater than the risk of getting a nomcom loaded up with a bunch of people who aren't really paying much attention. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
