Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
One final message from me on this topic, then I'm done ... Date:Mon, 17 May 2010 08:10:01 +0200 From:Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com Message-ID: 4bf0ddb9.60...@cisco.com | but I do accept that they have the authority to make such a statement, | if rough consensus could have been shown. I didn't ever say that the authority wasn't there, in fact, if I recall correctly, in my original message I think I explicitly agreed that the IESG has the ability to issue such statements when circumstances warrant. What I said was that they shouldn't here. There are two reasons. One is the conflict of interest, the nomcom is a topic, where (just possibly extreme emergency excepted - which is really hard to imagine here) the IESG should always ensure the full IETF procedure is carried out. I said enough about this before so I won't say more here. [Aside: nomcom procedure as I recall it has always been that if there's an area of ambiguity or doubt, the nomcom chair makes a ruling, if there was an urgent problem here that needed fixing, that would be the way to do it ...] Second, is that there is no need for any kind of statement here, from anyone. If the IESG simply did nothing, everything would continue working just the way it has in the past, nothing would break, or fail to work, in any way at all, nothing that needs a quick fix anyway, and there is no ambiguity that needs clearing up. I know there are people who believe that the requirements for nomcom membership should change, or should be interpreted differently than they have been, or now that it is practically possible in some cases to interpret things differently than it has been in the past, we should do do - and all of that is fine, I don't agree with all of that, but they're all legitimate viewpoints - but they all represent changes to the process, and should be achieved via the working group route, and not via the back door method of an IESG statement changing the rules. I have seen the argument that RFC3777 always meant attended for the whole IETF meeting and not just attended as it says. I'll explain more below why I think this is an incorrect interpretation, but for now let's just accept that is what 3777 means, and that (because of that) the IESG's statement is just a clarification, because attendance on a day pass cannot mean attended for all 5 days (I'll explain below why that's incorrect too, but let's ignore that problem for now). I would note that in the revised IESG statement, even the IESG agree that what they are doing is changing the rules - the only justification for allowing day pass attendees from the past 2 meetings to volunteer, and not those for future meetings, is that the rules previously allowed them, but they are not to allow them any more. If 3777 really meant attended the whole meeting then the original IESG statement would have been the way to go - people who attended one of the last two meetings on a day pass, clearly did not attend the whole meeting, and if 3777 does require attendance at the whole meeting, they should not be eligible. By making the change made in the revised statement, the IESG is making it clear that they are changing the eligibility rules for the nomcom - that's something only a WG should do. But if attended the whole meeting is what 3777 really means, then the IESG statement doesn't go far enough (not the current version, nor the original), we know from Rus Housley's message ... hous...@vigilsec.com said (Sat, 15 May 2010 11:15:03 -0400): | Attendance was determined by the presence of a check-in date. That is, the | person's registration packet was picked up at the registration desk. that the secretariat have the ability to determine who was actually present, and what's more, when they were first there (the check-in date mentioned.) Even if they didn't have that now, we could easily ask them to collect that information for the future, as (just as been done in the modified IESG statement), if we are actually making a change, no matter what change is made, or how - via WG or IESG statement, we don't want to apply retroactively, only to the future. With this information, we can (or could) disqualify from counting towards nomcom eligibility anyone who hasn't collected their badge by (say) 11:00 (11am) on the Monday morning - if the intent is that the volunteer must have attended all 5 days, then certainly anyone who wasn't there Monday morning (maybe pick some other time instead of 11:00 - that's the kind of issue a working group could hash out, of course) was not there for the full 5 days, and we would know that just as certainly as we do for someone who attended via a day pass. Now we have excluded everyone who arrived too late to have garnered enough IETF experience to be a nomcom volunteer, we just need some way to detect all of those who leave too early - this one the secretariat would currently be unable to handle I suspect, but we could ask them to
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
At 12:48 14-05-10, The IESG wrote: This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress. 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 Is the IESG referring to the One-day Guest Pass Experiment? [1] So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. 11% of the people in Hiroshima used the day pass. There were two NomCom members who used the day pass. The NomCom report [2] submitted by Mary Barnes mentions that there was an issue with regards to individuals lobbying for specific nominees. In addition, there were attempts to exert undue influence on the process by suggesting that NomCom members should support a specific nominee due to business relationships between the NomCom member's sponsor and the organization exerting the pressure. I could not find any reference to an issue in regards to the day pass. to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass. An update to RFC 3777 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. This statement provides guidance until an Where is the experiment documented? How long will the experiment be run? How long will this IESG statement be applicable? I leave it to the IETF Community to appreciate the message posted by Robert Elz [3]. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg06415.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg61729.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Rob, 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. I think you scope a working group charter based on the conversations like these that occur. I disagree with the IESG's statement, and I don't see even a rough consensus from my own view, but I do accept that they have the authority to make such a statement, if rough consensus could have been shown. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I got some data from the Secretariat that I hope provides better insight to the questions that were asked: 1) If day passes do not count as attendance, how many NomCom eligible people do we have? 718 2) If day passes count as attendance, how many NomCom eligible people do we have? 736 Methodology / Results: A table was created containing the email address, name and registration type (day pass or not) for every person who attended IETF 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77. Members of the IAB, IESG, and IAOC were dropped from the table since they are not eligible to serve as NomCom voting members. Attendance was determined by the presence of a check-in date. That is, the person's registration packet was picked up at the registration desk. Matches in the table is based email addresses. If a person used different email addresses for registration at different meetings, then we might have missed them in this quick review. The table was then checked to see how many people had attended three or more of these meetings. This yields 736 people who attended 3 or more meetings. Then, those people who had attended either IETF 76 or 77 on a Day Pass were identified and checked to see how many of the five meetings they attended. There were 24 people who had attended at least three of the five meetings but had had attended IETF 76, IETF 77, or both on a Day Pass. Of those 24 people, six of them had also attended at least three of the five meetings on full rate or student registrations. The remaining 18 people have attended only three of the five meetings with one or more on a Day Pass. Hope this provides the insight that people are seeking, Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On May 14, 2010, at 12:48 PM, The IESG wrote: This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress. 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 this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this statement. 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. I support the IESG statement below. In particular, I note that this statement is specifically regarding the NOMCOM volunteer eligibility for meeting participants with day-pass registrations; it's not about participants with student status. I believe student participants should continue to follow the current rule regarding their NOMCOM volunteer eligibility. Lixia PS: Full disclosure: I was a graduate student in my first few years of IETF meetings. PPS: My understanding is that, as of now, IETF meetings have very small number of student participants (Ray can correct me here if I get it wrong). If this number ever goes up significantly, it may deserve a reconsideration. = = = = = = = = 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 clarify the NomCom eligibility rules to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass. An update to RFC 3777 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. This statement provides guidance until an update to RFC 3777 is proposed, reviewed, and approved. 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. Use of a day pass for meetings prior to April 2010 counts as IETF meeting attendance; however, use of a day pass for meetings after to April 2010 will not count as IETF meeting attendance. ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/15/10 08:15, Russ Housley wrote: I got some data from the Secretariat that I hope provides better insight to the questions that were asked: ... The remaining 18 people have attended only three of the five meetings with one or more on a Day Pass. Hope this provides the insight that people are seeking, Yes, thanks. :) The only missing data point is the number of people out of the 18 for whom 2 of the 3 meetings attended were day passes, but given that we're only talking about 18 people I don't think the extra work required to determine that is worth it. With the addition of this information to the previous debate I am supportive of the IESG's message dated 14 May as a stopgap measure, and applaud the IESG for arriving at what is (IMO at least) a fair compromise position that takes into account the concerns expressed by the community. Regards, 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/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJL7x2GAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEbpoIAJ5XCKRdg3bRxPEBHL7MGT1s KMhxDO+AqrWq4L0OQumJOBKXXYFFgsY4dvSHQG2/r0QQtu5RhFPh2z6pXhmlAkUl BTUieOGBNWCtynubueqvDeD06qlc6X23tmHgHv9kAAb/ZZf2PG3+aIq4gHvsc3nK T7l4EXOcxbU//8dB7A9ddRx0pjxwQbKkwgbKUohk7N1IuuLvIm9a3VfOCQErkZFy 3NuaLk81v/pvnl6dptqFqAASe7Bsxl/Ku1Udjc1VZycQ/xXXwQaY75l4DHNpzxwq U5uGmq20GoNAe41esAu42jSuPXav0ZPYc0O4s5A7J/xntj4j7uh7m0nEOP9grYU= =J6lf -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
Russ, Thank you/the secretariat for chasing this level of detail down. I suspected the numbers would look something like this, and didn't want to ask for it, but it's much appreciated that you guys did check. With the addition of this information to the previous debate I am supportive of the IESG's message dated 14 May as a stopgap measure, and applaud the IESG for arriving at what is (IMO at least) a fair compromise position that takes into account the concerns expressed by the community. What Doug said. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress. 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 this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this statement. 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. So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. = = = = = = = = 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 clarify the NomCom eligibility rules to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass. An update to RFC 3777 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. This statement provides guidance until an update to RFC 3777 is proposed, reviewed, and approved. 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. Use of a day pass for meetings prior to April 2010 counts as IETF meeting attendance; however, use of a day pass for meetings after to April 2010 will not count as IETF meeting attendance. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:33PM -0400, The IESG wrote: The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass Experiment. I do not object to this statement, and I support the IESG making some statement on the matter so that the eligibility rules are clear. Best regards, 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/14/10 12:48, The IESG wrote: So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. I asked on 10 May for the number of people that the policy would apply to from the last 2 meetings, and haven't had any response to that query yet. I'm still interested in that information, and I hope I'm not alone in thinking that it's germane to the discussion and should be provided to the community before the IESG (or anyone else) takes a final decision on this topic. Thanks, Doug - Original Message Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700 From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us To: IETF ietf@ietf.org CC: The IESG i...@ietf.org 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? ... - -- ... 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/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJL7axHAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEzyoH/R1XVdtt5rkbINvwu6Ldz58d vYCKJW+2CgG/mANLZrdOKEclk06jngqKuTZDxuQCqnPg07mjDElMCnJukDsDxlQa 82hLwfxHryOekSg4rkwstU25kScBydbeWvDbDA8Iyh1pZnwY2e4Fu3qZGiRN/St6 lCKbMYPLgbxyahVwgjjGDX0fjypumIMbrEKMvgYUfNwNx1kE+7eAIdXTAXoBu00i 8MiKuKdfxWbH2EVornDL8OBtI/uHet4X/JiofcijMcpT4qtuFVtDXM/5I1xIqbXc snpFVVuFEOLEh62Za7j6/hlNFvj40ElBinFHWxJbmBuNrNPQeykbbI9rwoLA65g= =+ckt -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
My $.02 worth. 1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a day pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview of the IESG (or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide. 2) The IESG/IAOC can choose whether or not to offer such a day pass as that is an administrative issue, but the longer and broader discussion on whether or not a day attendee is an attendee for Nomcom purposes should still happen. 3) The IETF depends upon the revenues generated from IETF attendance and, as a matter of incentive, there should be a decrease in benefits if there is a decrease in revenue to the IETF. In this case, it may also be reasonable to eliminate student attendees as eligible for Nomcom membership. 4) The discussion on whether or not you get enough IETF culture while attending on a day pass is a rat hole. I would submit that I (and probably anyone with more than a 3-4 years or IETF attendence) have accumulated enough culture over my large number (73) of meetings that my cultural inculcation would not suffer by my attending solely on day passes for the next 5 years or so. It really is all about trying to avoid providing an incentive for attendees to make a choice that reduces the IETF's meeting income. 5) If the community decides that day attendees are full attendees for the purpose of Nomcom, I would recommend that the IESG/IAOC eliminate the day pass option as a matter of IETF sustainability. Some additional comments made by others in a discussion between former Nomcom chairs (I'll let them identify themselves) on this issue: o My concern with the day pass is that one is unlikely to meet people outside one's relatively small universe. o Whether we include day passes or not I suspect isn't going to make _that_ much difference in the grand scheme of things. Someone whose employer isn't willing to spring for the full week, and more importantly, be willing to let the engineer stay for more than single day, is also probably not going to be supportive in letting said engineer put in the necessary time to serve on Nomcom Mike At 03:48 PM 5/14/2010, The IESG wrote: This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress. 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 this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this statement. 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. So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. = = = = = = = = 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 clarify the NomCom eligibility rules to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass. An update to RFC 3777 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. This statement provides guidance until an update to RFC 3777 is proposed, reviewed, and approved. 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. Use of a day pass for meetings prior to April 2010 counts as IETF meeting attendance; however, use of a day pass for meetings after to April 2010 will not count as IETF meeting attendance. ___ 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
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Michael StJohns wrote: My $.02 worth. 1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a day pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview of the IESG (or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide. 2) The IESG/IAOC can choose whether or not to offer such a day pass as that is an administrative issue, but the longer and broader discussion on whether or not a day attendee is an attendee for Nomcom purposes should still happen. Or whether a full week pass is any more meaningful. 3) The IETF depends upon the revenues generated from IETF attendance and, as a matter of incentive, there should be a decrease in benefits if there is a decrease in revenue to the IETF. In this case, it may also be reasonable to eliminate student attendees as eligible for Nomcom membership. The assumption that folks WANT to participate in the NomCom vs. volunteer out of a sense of duty to the organization. Purchasing full meeting attendance so one can volunteer for the NomCom and actually be selected through the random process is a lot like playing the lottery, etc. I can't imagine that most folks who would be on the edge re. day pass vs week pass would really be motivated to spend the extra money so they might be on the NomCom. 4) The discussion on whether or not you get enough IETF culture while attending on a day pass is a rat hole. I would submit that I (and probably anyone with more than a 3-4 years or IETF attendence) have accumulated enough culture over my large number (73) of meetings that my cultural inculcation would not suffer by my attending solely on day passes for the next 5 years or so. It really is all about trying to avoid providing an incentive for attendees to make a choice that reduces the IETF's meeting income. It is not about income, it is about facilitating participation. I continue to assert that purchase of a 5 day pass doesn't have much correlation with learning of the IETF culture, and more important seeing potential new leaders interacting with their peers and expressing their professional opinions. 5) If the community decides that day attendees are full attendees for the purpose of Nomcom, I would recommend that the IESG/IAOC eliminate the day pass option as a matter of IETF sustainability. You have no basis for that recommendation other than speculation. My speculation is that day pass attendance will increase overall revenue by encouraging folks w/o any reason to be present for 4.5 days to attend and participate where it is important. Furthermore, a number of folks have suggested allowing multiple day passes which would further increase revenue. In any case, the objective should be to encourage qualified participation in the IETF processes. Adding financial barriers will only server to reduce participation. Some additional comments made by others in a discussion between former Nomcom chairs (I'll let them identify themselves) on this issue: o My concern with the day pass is that one is unlikely to meet people outside one's relatively small universe. You are still arguing a question that hasn't been raised ... that is what actually constitutes knowledge of the IETF culture, people, etc. My agrument is that paying full fare really has no relation to that question. I paided full fare as recently as Vancouver, attended exactly two sessions on two days of one working group. That full fare DID NOT qualify me to help select future leaders via NomCom participation. o Whether we include day passes or not I suspect isn't going to make _that_ much difference in the grand scheme of things. Someone whose employer isn't willing to spring for the full week, and more importantly, be willing to let the engineer stay for more than single day, is also probably not going to be supportive in letting said engineer put in the necessary time to serve on Nomcom So the argument is moot ... they won't volunteer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On May 14, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 05/14/10 12:48, The IESG wrote: So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. I asked on 10 May for the number of people that the policy would apply to from the last 2 meetings, and haven't had any response to that query yet. I'm still interested in that information, and I hope I'm not alone in thinking that it's germane to the discussion and should be provided to the community before the IESG (or anyone else) takes a final decision on this topic. Hiroshima: 121 Anaheim: 135 Ray IAD Thanks, Doug - Original Message Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700 From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us To: IETF ietf@ietf.org CC: The IESG i...@ietf.org 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? ... - -- ... 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/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJL7axHAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEzyoH/R1XVdtt5rkbINvwu6Ldz58d vYCKJW+2CgG/mANLZrdOKEclk06jngqKuTZDxuQCqnPg07mjDElMCnJukDsDxlQa 82hLwfxHryOekSg4rkwstU25kScBydbeWvDbDA8Iyh1pZnwY2e4Fu3qZGiRN/St6 lCKbMYPLgbxyahVwgjjGDX0fjypumIMbrEKMvgYUfNwNx1kE+7eAIdXTAXoBu00i 8MiKuKdfxWbH2EVornDL8OBtI/uHet4X/JiofcijMcpT4qtuFVtDXM/5I1xIqbXc snpFVVuFEOLEh62Za7j6/hlNFvj40ElBinFHWxJbmBuNrNPQeykbbI9rwoLA65g= =+ckt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
Day Pass History: Hiroshima: 121 Anaheim: 135 On 5/14/2010 4:02 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 05/14/10 12:48, The IESG wrote: So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. I asked on 10 May for the number of people that the policy would apply to from the last 2 meetings, and haven't had any response to that query yet. I'm still interested in that information, and I hope I'm not alone in thinking that it's germane to the discussion and should be provided to the community before the IESG (or anyone else) takes a final decision on this topic. Thanks, Doug Original Message Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700 From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us To: IETF ietf@ietf.org CC: The IESG i...@ietf.org 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? ... ___ 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
On 5/14/2010 3:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote: Day Pass History: Hiroshima: 121 Anaheim: 135 Thanks Russ (and Ray). However it's not clear to me if those numbers represent the total number of day pass participants (which they seem to) or if those numbers are an answer to the question I posed below. Thanks, Doug 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? -- ... 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
Doug, I had also wished for numbers that more clearly translated into impact on who was NomCom eligible (as you requested), but decided not to, simply because I wasn't convinced this would matter enough on who was selected to serve on NomCom, to justifiy spending secretariat time gathering the information. Now that the IESG has changed their proposed policy statement so that people who MIGHT have purchased a day pass thinking that this counted as attending for NomCom purposes, I am OK with not knowing these numbers, and I believe that the IESG is interpreting 3777 in a way that is not unreasonable. Thanks, Spencer These are the number of day passes that were purchased for the meeting listed. Russ On 5/14/2010 6:32 PM, Doug Barton wrote: On 5/14/2010 3:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote: Day Pass History: Hiroshima: 121 Anaheim: 135 Thanks Russ (and Ray). However it's not clear to me if those numbers represent the total number of day pass participants (which they seem to) or if those numbers are an answer to the question I posed below. 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? ___ 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
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress. 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 this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this statement. Please send substantive comments to the i...@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. So far, only one person has registered for the IETF 78 meeting with a day pass, and that person has not paid yet. = = = = = = = = 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 clarify the NomCom eligibility rules to address IETF participants that make use of a day pass. An update to RFC 3777 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. This statement provides guidance until an update to RFC 3777 is proposed, reviewed, and approved. 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. Use of a day pass for meetings prior to April 2010 counts as IETF meeting attendance; however, use of a day pass for meetings after to April 2010 will not count as IETF meeting attendance. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
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
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
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
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:30 -0400 From:Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com Message-ID: aanlktikr_ekunqtsglxsvleeda8ndd8nxu6ofmpiw...@mail.gmail.com | 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
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: 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: 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
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:29 -0700 Dave CROCKER dcroc...@bbiw.net 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: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
IAOC Hat Off 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. IAOC Hat On 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
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: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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
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: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote: ... Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not consider the NOMCOM ramifications. Â 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. Â 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
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
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: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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
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
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: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com 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. Â As Dave Crocker said, we have to make a choice. Â 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. Â (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass. Â 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. Â Period. As for the future, I find a flaw in the IESG's logic above. Â Indeed, a single day of one physical meeting is not enough to learn the culture. But we're still requiring three separate meetings. Â 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
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
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com 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
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
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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote: illness forced them to participate remotely. Â 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. Â So we need to separate that issue from the immediate issue of who might qualify for the NomCom _this year_. Â 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. Â 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
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
On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com 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 attachment: tglassey.vcf___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 todd == todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE 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
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
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 16:25:12 -0400 From:Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com 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: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
- Original Message - From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu To: IETF ietf@ietf.org 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
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com 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. Â 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
At 04:57 AM 5/7/2010, Robert Elz wrote: 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. The idea behind this statement is to avoid opening a discussion about NomCom. The IESG probably sees the need to step in to solve the problem. We could view this as a statement to clarify an administrative issue. However the subject line says policy statement. The IESG does not get to decide on policy for the IETF. That's done through BCPs. This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to decide - and in the interim, since we know that working groups take time to resolve issues, this should be handled in the standard way that nomcom questions are handled - by the nomcom chair making a decision (after taking advice from wherever he or she deems necessary). Yes. But the IESG hasn't been using working groups for non-technical issues. The better course, as you mentioned above, is to leave it to the current NomCom Chair to see whether there is a problem and how to address it. That the IESG have considered making a statement on this issue to the extent of sending a last call on one appalls me - and suggests to me that the incoming nomcom is going to have a lot of work to do, as there it seems as if there are not many incumbents who should be returned. This is the kind of issue that gets forgotten after some time. There is a way to send a message to the IESG if you appalled. :-) That requires NomCom qualification. That said, to the issue itself, for whatever working group is eventually tasked with dealing with this issue - I would expect among a general overhaul of the nomcom member eligibility rules - it has been 6 years now since 3777 was published, plenty of time to consider how well it is working, and whether the environment has changed enough to need a change - the day pass thing for IETF meetings being one of many changes in the IETF environment in the past 6 years. The eligibility rules are arbitrary. There is no best way for eligibility. | 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. The problem is that this turned into a long running experiment. The question of NomCom eligibility was raised well after the first run. You may wish to ask the IAOC why it ran an experiment without giving enough thought to how it affects NomCom. I am not sure that follows. Nowhere in 3777 does it define what attended means - it has typically been implemented as paid to attend (so the person's name is in the list of registered attendees) but that is certainly not what 3777 says - it says attended and just attended. Do we really have to define what attended means? If it is going to mean paid to attend, I would strongly object as the ability to pay favors a class of participants. In the text you quoted from RFC 3777, it is mentioned that the IETF Secretariat determines whether the attendee fulfills the requirements. That makes it an administrative matter. By using this statement for more than a one-time experiment, the IESG would change that into a way to disqualify attendees outside the Standards Process. | 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. Most probably not, but on no reading of 3777 could a single day possibly qualify someone for noncom membership - the very minimum would be 3 days (3 meetings, at a day each) - or perhaps 3 meetings at 5 minutes each, to collect the (fully paid) registration packet and leave... The path to evil is paved with good intentions. And that's where we are going if we have to define the requirements for understanding IETF culture. It is not up to the IESG to observe what constitutes sufficient exposure to IETF culture. Frankly, this intermixing of the experience issue, and payment, is absurd. Yes. Of course, all of this is for a working group to discuss and decide, and certainly not for the IESG - the IESG should *never* make any pronouncements that affect the nomcom operation, only a properly formed working group with noomcom process issues in its charter should ever do that. It is convenient for the IESG to make these proclamations. The constitutionality has never been tested. At 07:01 PM 5/6/2010, Melinda Shore wrote: True, but it seems to me that on average that doesn't/ won't happen, and given the size of the nomcom this isn't likely to be an issue. The larger
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Inline - Original Message - From: Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au To: IETF ietf@ietf.org Cc: i...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:57 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment Date:Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400 From:The IESG i...@ietf.org Message-ID: 4be33dac.80...@ietf.org | 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. But be fair: they are doing an IETF Last Call BEFORE they decide on the statement. Is that not how you try to determine consensus within the whole IETF? Bert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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. This is the main point for me. I want my NomCom to have significant breadth and depth of understanding, as described here. I'm in favor. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On 5/8/2010 3:21 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: But be fair: they are doing an IETF Last Call BEFORE they decide on the statement. Is that not how you try to determine consensus within the whole IETF? That's a necessary, but not a sufficient, action. One can solicit community comment, as a general effort to get additional input. This is quite different from soliciting a demonstration of community consensus. The latter explicitly declares that the real authority for the decision lies with the community. The former leaves it with the group that issued the call. 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
I think the policy recommended by the IESG is the right thing. Since IETF WGs operate via their mailing lists, IETF meeting are for cross area / cross WG interaction, which only works for people there a significant part of the week. This is the reason why the IETF has traditionally refused to have any such thing as day passes, why I don't think day passes are a good idea, and why the policy suggested by the IESG preserves the traditional meaning of attending an IETF meeting. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote: On Fri, 7 May 2010, John C Klensin wrote: Finally, as Dave Crocker pointed out, complexity in our operating rules rarely serves us well. Â Whether the discussion is about this case or about Nomcom qualifications more generally, we should not try to do enough hair-splitting to cover every possible case... if only because we will get it wrong and then require even more hair-splitting. That is exactly my point .. differentiating daypass vs full fare registration is hair splitting over a critera that all seem to think is weak to begin with. Whether the criteria is a good or bad indication of qualification, considered in isolation, is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it is a reasonably balance between qualification, indication of interest, simplicity, ease of administration, and resistance to abuse. Based on this constellation of measures, paying for a week's admission and picking up your badge, the traditional criteria, still seem good to me. Of course, with the publicly verifiable random selection and other features of the nomcom voter selection process, it isn't all that critical. So, I wouldn't be particularly upset if the community wants to consider changing the criteria. But the recommended IESG policy is the closest to preserving the traditional criteria. Thanks, Donald ... Dave Morris To be clear .. I reject the proposed IESG statement. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Date:Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400 From:The IESG i...@ietf.org Message-ID: 4be33dac.80...@ietf.org | 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. This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to decide - and in the interim, since we know that working groups take time to resolve issues, this should be handled in the standard way that nomcom questions are handled - by the nomcom chair making a decision (after taking advice from wherever he or she deems necessary). That the IESG have considered making a statement on this issue to the extent of sending a last call on one appalls me - and suggests to me that the incoming nomcom is going to have a lot of work to do, as there it seems as if there are not many incumbents who should be returned. That said, to the issue itself, for whatever working group is eventually tasked with dealing with this issue - I would expect among a general overhaul of the nomcom member eligibility rules - it has been 6 years now since 3777 was published, plenty of time to consider how well it is working, and whether the environment has changed enough to need a change - the day pass thing for IETF meetings being one of many changes in the IETF environment in the past 6 years. | 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. Yes, since it is important, I am going to quote the entire relevant section from section 4 of 3777 (it is actually split over 2 pages in the RFC, I deleted the page break, but otherwise this is cut paste) ... 14. Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer. The 5 meetings are the five most recent meetings that ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community. The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that volunteers have met the attendance requirement. Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering. Volunteers are expected to be familiar with the IETF processes and procedures, which are readily learned by active participation in a working group and especially by serving as a document editor or working group chair. | 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. I am not sure that follows. Nowhere in 3777 does it define what attended means - it has typically been implemented as paid to attend (so the person's name is in the list of registered attendees) but that is certainly not what 3777 says - it says attended and just attended. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't ever been a case where the secretariat has said person X doesn't qualify as they didn't attend enough of the relevant 5 meetings to have X reply Yes, I was there, I just didn't bother registering, and attended without paying. If that is what happened, and can be demonstrated, then personally I think X is qualified for the nomcom - certainly the reason for section 14 in 3777 isn't related to seeking more ways to make people want to pay and so enrich the IETF, it is to ensure the potential nomcom member has enough IETF experience to be able to properly judge the nominees - handing over cash to the secretariat is irrelevant to that purpose. | 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. Most probably not, but on no reading of 3777 could a single day possibly qualify someone for noncom membership - the very minimum would be 3 days (3 meetings, at a day each) - or perhaps 3 meetings at 5 minutes each, to collect the (fully paid) registration packet and leave... | 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
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On 5/6/2010 9:51 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings does not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone doing a day pass during a trough in their business cycle. I would be comfortable allowing someone volunteering for the NomCom membership pool to count ONE IETF attended on a day pass - not more than that. This strikes me as a classic case of having the desire to be fair get in the way of being workable. We need simple rules. Simple rules always have problems at the boundaries. Being fair-minded, we want to handle boundary conditions... fairly. That leads to special-case rules that primarily serve to make things more complicated, while typically not providing fundamental benefit. Let's start with the simple observation that attending all week, three times, by itself teaches one little of what is essential for doing good work on Nomcom. It imparts no understanding of IETF process, nor insight about the skills needed for performing IETF leadership, nor experience upon which to evaluate those being considered for leadership positions. Given that, we do not need to wiggle with a rule that primarily serves produce Nomcom volunteers who have LESS of the relevant knowledge... 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
On 5/7/2010 4:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote: 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. This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to decide - Oops. Robert is correct that this cannot be an IESG decision. This must be an IETF-wide decision. I don't happen to think that requires a working group, and I'm fine with having the IESG take the initiative and draft the relevant text to be an addendum to the current Nomcom normative specification, and make an assessment of public rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be IETF-wide and it must be published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide consensus. 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
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:27:48AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: assessment of public rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be IETF-wide and it must be published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide consensus. Even for this experiment (the evaluation conditions for which have always been a little hazy to me, but never mind that)? That is, the statement explicitly notes that an update to the RFC is needed for any permanent state of affairs. This just clarifies the rules temporarily so that we can get on with picking the next NomCom. Surely if we have to get a new RFC out the door, it's going to wreak havoc with with NomCom process this year; but we have the problem right now, because someone could be eligible or not for this year's NomCom depending on whether the day pass they used in Anaheim or Hiroshima is counted. I think that, as a temporary measure to deal with the current experiment, the IESG taking a decision is acceptable. Excluding day-pass-only people is completely defensible because the rules were written in a period when day passes didn't exist. So nobody who was then eligible is made ineligible by this decision. (It is not relevant that someone would have used a day pass had it previously been available: we do not make rules for every possible world, only for the one we're in.) 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
Spencer: I suggested the one-of--your-three-meetings-can-be-with-a-day-pass option during IESG discussion. My thought was that day job demands and other reasons might make someone prefer to take an occasional day pass instead of a full meeting, and I'd rather err on the side of allowing more volunteers than being too strict. My understanding of the rest of the IESG's opinion was that they did not want to see any reduction in required exposure to the IETF process. Personally, I think the difference would be minimal. But so would the help that the relaxed rule would bring. I'd be surprised if there's a single person from the usual 100 or so Nomcom volunteers who has used a day pass. So I at least did not feel strongly about arguing this either way. (But I'm persuaded by Dave's argument that the rule should be simple.) Dave, Kre: I'm not so convinced that there would be any problem even if the IESG (or IAOC) decided how to interpret the RFC-specified rules in a practical situation. However, I don't think we need to argue this because there is an ongoing Last Call and the intention is to ask the community for feedback and then make a decision. Even if we did this with a BCP RFC and a working group, there would still be a similar Last Call and an IESG approval decision. You could, of course, make the argument that this is important enough to be permanently recorded in an RFC as opposed to an IESG statement. However, my understanding is that the day pass is still an experiment, so you could argue that its an overkill. I have no problem doing this as an RFC either, however. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Having served on Nomcom before as well have participated in the Day Pass Experiment, I find myself disagreeing with this policy statement. The statement seems to assumes that the day-pass holder minimally use their pass and a week-pass holder maximumly uses their pass. The statement completely ignores that choosing eligibility in NOMCOM by which passes pays for is significantly flawed to begin with. In my opinion, no harm would be done by allowing someone who attended 3 of 5 IETFs only on minimum day passes from serving on a NOMCOM. We should not restrict eligibility to those who pay for full weeks until such time that there is evidence of harm. Given we haven't formed a NOMCOM since the Day Pass Experiment started, there simply cannot be yet be any such evidence. I think this policy action is premature. I oppose this policy statement. Regards, Kurt On May 6, 2010, at 3:07 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 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
--On Friday, May 07, 2010 07:27 -0700 Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 5/7/2010 4:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote: 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. This is an issue that must be sent to a working group to decide - Oops. Robert is correct that this cannot be an IESG decision. This must be an IETF-wide decision. I don't happen to think that requires a working group, and I'm fine with having the IESG take the initiative and draft the relevant text to be an addendum to the current Nomcom normative specification, and make an assessment of public rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be IETF-wide and it must be published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide consensus. Sadly, I have to mostly agree. I do think the IAOC and IESG could have avoided this issue by defining the day pass experiment as a paid visitor arrangement that explicitly does not establish eligibility for anything that registration establishes, but, given the situation we now find ourselves in... At the same time, as long as it remains clearly an experiment, I think (partially following Andrew Sullivan's later note) it is perfectly reasonable for the IESG to take the position that experiments don't establish Nomcom eligibility and that a published RFC is not a requirement to carry out an experiment or explain its details. Of course, that case would be much stronger if there were a real description of the experiment and evaluation conditions, but... john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I support this change. Cullen PS - and when I read the ietf@ietf.org mailing list, I am often convinced I don't understand the culture of the IETF so I am glad to note the IESG only talks about what is clearly not sufficient and makes no implications about what might be sufficient to understand the IETF. I agree the current scheme does not ensure the best nomcom but it's better than any other proposal we have on the table. On May 6, 2010, at 4:07 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 Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Spencer, I think the right way to fix this problem is to allow anyone who self declares themselves as currently unemployed get a significantly reduced rate for a 5 day pass (perhaps the same rate as 1 day pass). I know this could be abused by people who are self employed consultants but given the type of people that are self employed consultants and that choose to come to IETF, I don't think it would be abused. Cullen On May 6, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Dear IESG, I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings does not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone doing a day pass during a trough in their business cycle. I would be comfortable allowing someone volunteering for the NomCom membership pool to count ONE IETF attended on a day pass - not more than that. Allowing a day pass as one of your three of five doesn't seem dangerous to me, and if you DID attend two tutorials, the reception, the social, and a day of IETF meetings, you certainly could have inhaled some IETF culture. Considering how many NomCom volunteers we get, tuning the algorithm may not affect the membership of a NomCom more than once out of twenty years, of course, so please don't spend much time tuning the algorithm! Thanks, Spencer 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 mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I think that, as a temporary measure to deal with the current experiment, the IESG taking a decision is acceptable. Excluding day-pass-only people is completely defensible because the rules were written in a period when day passes didn't exist. So nobody who was then eligible is made ineligible by this decision. (It is not relevant that someone would have used a day pass had it previously been available: we do not make rules for every possible world, only for the one we're in.) The converse is also true ... if this policy had been previosly stated, and I felt a need to stack the nomcom with myself, an otherwise unqualified candidate, I could have decided to pay the full registration instead of the day pass and attended exactly the same IETF functions. I just don't see the difference between being dedicated enough to the IETF to purchase a day-pass and attend one day plus the added main tent activities and 4 meetings ago purchasing a full registration and attending exactly the same number of meetings and main tent functions. The RFC has already been cited and it just says attend. A day pass consitutes attending ... changing the english definition after the fact is changing the rules after the fact. And a change which really says nothing about an individual's ability to provide useful input in the nomcom process. The appropriate statement from the IESG at this time is to simply confirm that the english word 'attend' encompases day-pass attendance. At the present time, the maximum corruption, if it is indeed meaningful, is two day passes and 1 full meeting. Still a lot of dedication to the IETF as measured my travel time. I suspect that the nature of day-pass vs. full registration is that folks for whom travel costs are a major fraction of the expense would only use day passes for local IETFs ... but it really doean't matter. Meeting attendence as defined by registration is such a weak measure that this whole discussion is really pretty silly. 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
As I recall, the basis of the 3/5 rule (and previously the 3/3 rule) was to avoid ballot stuffing, I do not see substantial risk of allowing those who have used day passes to be eligible for NOMCOM, especially considering that in all likelihood nobody is going to do that more than once. As such *I oppose the proposed change*, especially since it seems to boil down to money, since someone who pays for a full week and only goes the day would be treated differently. We would call that buying a vote. I still believe the risks of ballot stuffing exist, and we should take some measures to mitigate them. However, I now wonder whether the time is ripe to review not only NOMCOM qualification but also our NOMCOM processes, with an eye toward being more inclusive in a virtual world. Eliot On 5/7/10 12:07 AM, 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 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
On 5/7/2010 8:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Dave, Kre: I'm not so convinced that there would be any problem even if the IESG (or IAOC) decided how to interpret the RFC-specified rules in a practical situation. However, I don't think we need to argue this because there is an ongoing Last Call and the intention is to ask the community for feedback and then make a decision. 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. Again, I'm not suggesting that a working group is necessary. There isn't that much to discuss. On 5/7/2010 7:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: This just clarifies the rules temporarily so that we can get on with picking the next NomCom. Surely if we have to get a new RFC out the door, it's going to wreak havoc with with NomCom process this year; but we have the problem right now, because someone could be eligible or not for this year's NomCom depending on whether the day pass they used in Anaheim or Hiroshima is counted. It didn't wreak havoc with Nomcom for last year. Why will it have that effect for this year? (On the other hand, classing the day pass as applying to a visitor rather than participant could be a clever way to avoid the constitutional question.) 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
Personally I think that at least for the incoming 2010 nomcom having a clear well defined criteria that can be applied unambiguously is more important than the precise details of what the criteria is. This proposed rule seems perfectly reasonable for use this time around. Ross On Thu, 6 May 2010, 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 08:54:51AM -0700, David Morris wrote: The RFC has already been cited and it just says attend. A day pass consitutes attending ... changing the english definition after the fact is changing the rules after the fact. I think that argument begs the question. It seems to me that this is exactly what people are arguing about: whether registering for only one day, being barred from other days, and paying for only that day, is really attending. One could argue without straining that attending the meeting means attending the whole thing or at least the bulk of it, not just a small part of it. Since the IETF meeting lasts all week, people on a day pass do not, by definition, attend the meeting (they attend no more than 1/5). It was probably not clear from my earlier message, but my feeling on this topic is that I don't care what temporary work around rules we pick, given that we're running an experiment[1]. The key thing right now, IMO, is to have _some_ ad hoc rule decided in advance so that we don't have a problem when it is time to form the NomCom. (I think their work is hard enough without injecting a delay so we can argue about who is qualified. Of course, as others have observed, there is only a tiny chance that anyone will volunteer who doesn't meet the standard rule anyway.) So I think it's acceptable that the IESG pick some rule, even though there's a conflict of interest there; and I don't feel strongly about what rule they pick, either. I think roughly fair in this case is just as good as rough consensus. If day passes continue to be a feature of the IETF, we'll need to open the NomCom eligibility requirements. As soon as we open the requirements, 10 billion other issues with the current process rules will also be up for discussion (in one of those IETF debates where we attempt to make process rules for every annoying thing that has happened in the past 5 years). I predict that such discussion will only complete slowly, so in the meantime we need some rule and for everyone to know what it is. [1] This situation also surely provides some indication of the care that needs to be taken with future design of experiments of this sort. 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
--On Thursday, May 06, 2010 16:15 -0700 David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote: I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor criteria for familiarity with IETF culture and more important familiarity with the participation of the potential nominees being considered for leadership roles in the IETF. In the pre-day pass days, I paid full fare more than once but only attended a day or two of each meeting. This year, when I used a day pass, I might have opted to attend two WG meetings on two days requiring regular registration but not seen any more of the IETF culture than I did with a single day pass. ... David, I have some sympathy for your position and, indeed, can figure out all sorts of ways by which the 3 of 5 criterion could be fine-tuned. I also know people who attend few meetings in person whom I'd rather have on the Nomcom (because of knowledge of the IETF culture, people, etc.) than people who regularly attend meetings but who have managed to escape having clues on those subjects. Maybe, as we get better, or aspire to get better, about remote and parachute in participation, we should completely reopen the question of Nomcom qualifications and make provisions for alternatives to regular meeting participation. Alternately, since participation in multiple WGs with different styles gives a lot more information than just seeing one (no matter how many days one pays for), perhaps we should tighten the rules by requiring active participation in more than one WG. But it seems to me that it should be possible to clarify the relationship of an experiment to the Nomcom process without either (i) creating a back door through which to open the Nomcom selection model or (ii) taking up lots more time than creating the experiment itself did (although I believe that the IETF Last Call that the IESG has initiated is appropriate and necessary). I also find the idea that someone would plan to attend for a day but make the decision as to whether to get a day pass or pay the full registration fee based on Nomcom eligibility mildly appalling. Fortunately, I think it is also unlikely, at least statistically. In addition, if we were going to start tuning, I note that there are things other than the Nomcom, such as signing recall petitions, for which we use Nomcom eligibility as a criterion. If we were to make day passes permanent, it is possible that we'd want to make different decisions about Nomcom-eligibility and Recall-eligibility (the IESG should be even less involved in the latter decision, for obvious reasons). In those respects, I think there are two things about the proposed IESG statement that are, in retrospect, not quite right. One is that the entire second paragraph (The IESG observes...) is irrelevant and distracting. The IESG is welcome to observe anything it likes, but the IESG doesn't get to second-guess RFC 3777. All 3777 says (See Section 4, paragraph 14) is what the requirement is. It doesn't say, e.g., these are the reasons and, if other arrangements come up that seem to support the same reasons, they might be used as justification to vary the rules without formally updating BCP 10. So I would encourage people to ignore that paragraph and the IESG to drop it. The second is a little harder to explain. It seems to me that the real problem here is that, other than in 3933, we don't have rules about the scope of experiments. While this particular instance may require quicker action, it seems to me that we need a clarification that _no_ experiment can be initiated that has process effects unless there is a document (such as a 3933 proposal) that explicitly describes the intended process experiment component. That would essentially prohibit creating day pass as an alternate form of registration without sorting this type of thing out with the community. That idea has rough edges, but such ideas typically do. Finally, as Dave Crocker pointed out, complexity in our operating rules rarely serves us well. Whether the discussion is about this case or about Nomcom qualifications more generally, we should not try to do enough hair-splitting to cover every possible case... if only because we will get it wrong and then require even more hair-splitting. best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Dave, 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. Maybe, if there really was a difference in the intents here. I don't speak for the IESG's intent but my intent definitely was to treat this question in exactly the same way as we treat these questions for documents. For your comparison, here's two last call announcements, one for the statement and then another one for a document. Do you think there's a real difference? Please note that the IESG sometimes uses its own judgment even for documents, e.g., by blocking something that we believe is broken. 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. The IESG has received a request from the X WG to consider the following document: DOC as an CLASS 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by DATE. In any case, I wouldn't mind doing this change/clarification as an RFC. I don't see why it would take any longer than approving a statement, but I am aware that other people may not agree with me on that... Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On Fri, 7 May 2010, John C Klensin wrote: Finally, as Dave Crocker pointed out, complexity in our operating rules rarely serves us well. Whether the discussion is about this case or about Nomcom qualifications more generally, we should not try to do enough hair-splitting to cover every possible case... if only because we will get it wrong and then require even more hair-splitting. That is exactly my point .. differentiating daypass vs full fare registration is hair splitting over a critera that all seem to think is weak to begin with. I still think the right clarification is that for the duration of the daypass experiment, attending on a day pass is considered equivalent to attending with a full registration. The broader discussion in the future should figure out what characteristics of attendence are meaningful critera to be considered for nomcom participation. Simple full weak registration is meaningless as I've already illustrated from my own behavior. Dave Morris To be clear .. I reject the proposed IESG statement. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
On 5/7/2010 8:54 AM, David Morris wrote: The appropriate statement from the IESG at this time is to simply confirm that the english word 'attend' encompases day-pass attendance. At the present time, the maximum corruption, if it is indeed meaningful, is two day passes and 1 full meeting. Still a lot of dedication to the IETF as measured my travel time. I suspect that the nature of day-pass vs. full registration is that folks for whom travel costs are a major fraction of the expense would only use day passes for local IETFs ... but it really doean't matter. I think David has hit it right on the head here, and I disagree with the IESG's statement on this basis. Going forward I think Jari is probably on the right track, although personally I would say something like, 'For the purposes of this section 1 out of the 3 meetings may consist of 2 day passes for any of the last 5 meetings.' As someone whose IETF participation looks like this: 1. 100% mailing lists for ~3 years 2. Mailing lists + attending most/nearly all meetings for ~3 years 3. Mailing lists + remote participation for almost 5 years I feel pretty comfortable stating that I know the difference that actually attending the meetings makes, and I do agree that it's an important _component_ of what would qualify someone for the nomcom. However as David correctly points out above, the worst possible damage that could occur from the simple reading of 3777 does not justify departure from the existing process. (Nor, IMO the level of attention it's already received, but I digress.) Meeting attendence as defined by registration is such a weak measure that this whole discussion is really pretty silly. Unfortunately it's one of the few that we can really quantify, and does tend to have a fairly high correlation with the actual qualities that we want to have in a nomcom candidate. Of course one could also proceed down several other ratholes, including the Do we already have an embarrassment of riches in existing qualified nomcom candidates vs. What is the value of encouraging and simplifying the process of adding new blood to the pool? But I won't. hth, 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
Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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 mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
This seems completely reasonable. john --On Thursday, May 06, 2010 18:07 -0400 The IESG i...@ietf.org 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 ofthe 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 5IETF meetings in order to volunteer, and that use of a day passdoes 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
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote: This seems completely reasonable. And to me too. Marshall john --On Thursday, May 06, 2010 18:07 -0400 The IESG i...@ietf.org 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 ofthe 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 5IETF meetings in order to volunteer, and that use of a day passdoes 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor criteria for familiarity with IETF culture and more important familiarity with the participation of the potential nominees being considered for leadership roles in the IETF. In the pre-day pass days, I paid full fare more than once but only attended a day or two of each meeting. This year, when I used a day pass, I might have opted to attend two WG meetings on two days requiring regular registration but not seen any more of the IETF culture than I did with a single day pass. I'm certain there are others with similar attendance patterns. There was a time when I'd have met the 3 of 5 criteria but not the spirit of the requirement. In reality, attending on a day pass is probabaly as useful a measure of commitment to the IETF culture as paying the full fare. Part of the IETF culture as I know it is that people self-qualify for responsiblity and I'd expect most folks know if they are qualified, whether they attended via day pass or full registration. You can't assume that because someone registered for the full week, that they participated in the full culture. A day pass plus attending the Sunday reception and evening plenaries is probably a better parcipant than full registration to attend 3 isolated WG meetings. So I'd suggest 1 full registration over the past 3 years plus at least two day pass meetings in the last 5 opportunities. Dave Morris On Thu, 6 May 2010, 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
On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote: This seems completely reasonable. And to me too. +1 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
On 2010-05-07 11:20, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote: This seems completely reasonable. And to me too. +1 +1 Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
At 03:07 PM 5/6/2010, 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 [snip] 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. Agreed. 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. A person can spend a whole week at an IETF meeting without understanding the culture. The emphasis on culture may be read as favoring incumbents. The important points, in my opinion, are the cross-area review and experiencing how the process works in practice. There are probably not so new participants attending on a Day Pass. I doubt that the IESG would say that they do not understand the culture. 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
I partly agree with David, and I don't understand the statement, why that use of a day pass does not count as IETF meeting attendance? They also pay registration fare to IETF, stay at the meeting venue in the meeting week (although only one day) with other participants together, and face-to-face talk about IETF topics.. Regards, Xiangsong - Original Message - From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com To: IETF ietf@ietf.org Cc: IESG i...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:15 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor criteria for familiarity with IETF culture and more important familiarity with the participation of the potential nominees being considered for leadership roles in the IETF. In the pre-day pass days, I paid full fare more than once but only attended a day or two of each meeting. This year, when I used a day pass, I might have opted to attend two WG meetings on two days requiring regular registration but not seen any more of the IETF culture than I did with a single day pass. I'm certain there are others with similar attendance patterns. There was a time when I'd have met the 3 of 5 criteria but not the spirit of the requirement. In reality, attending on a day pass is probabaly as useful a measure of commitment to the IETF culture as paying the full fare. Part of the IETF culture as I know it is that people self-qualify for responsiblity and I'd expect most folks know if they are qualified, whether they attended via day pass or full registration. You can't assume that because someone registered for the full week, that they participated in the full culture. A day pass plus attending the Sunday reception and evening plenaries is probably a better parcipant than full registration to attend 3 isolated WG meetings. So I'd suggest 1 full registration over the past 3 years plus at least two day pass meetings in the last 5 opportunities. Dave Morris On Thu, 6 May 2010, 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
SM wrote: A person can spend a whole week at an IETF meeting without understanding the culture. True, but it seems to me that on average that doesn't/ won't happen, and given the size of the nomcom this isn't likely to be an issue. I used to participate in every meeting, took a few years off, and then went to Anaheim. Despite being on mailing lists and having been an active participant in the past, the general tone of things had shifted in ways I hadn't anticipated. In particular, I hadn't really appreciated the way that the lowly, casual bar bof had turned into a *Bar* *BOF*. I think being at meetings is important if you want to participate in shaping the future of the organization. I also think that's unfortunate, but it is what it is and better to be realistic about it. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Looks OK to me. Hope this helps. ~gwz -Original Message- From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:08 AM To: IETF; IETF Announce Cc: IESG Subject: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment 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
Dear IESG, I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings does not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone doing a day pass during a trough in their business cycle. I would be comfortable allowing someone volunteering for the NomCom membership pool to count ONE IETF attended on a day pass - not more than that. Allowing a day pass as one of your three of five doesn't seem dangerous to me, and if you DID attend two tutorials, the reception, the social, and a day of IETF meetings, you certainly could have inhaled some IETF culture. Considering how many NomCom volunteers we get, tuning the algorithm may not affect the membership of a NomCom more than once out of twenty years, of course, so please don't spend much time tuning the algorithm! Thanks, Spencer 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 mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
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 i...@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-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
