Subject: Re:

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:22:03 -0400

Hi,

     I'd like to recommend changing

"Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 2 of the last 3
IETF meetings in order to volunteer. "
to

"Members of the IETF community must have registered for and attended at
least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer."

in 2727bis.

There were a couple of folks who had attended but not registered and who
volunteered to serve.  I took the decision not to allow
this, broadly interpreting attendance to include registration.
Registration is what is being checked to determine whether the
volunteers are qualified.

Phil

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:27:48 -0400 (EDT)

> volunteers are qualified.

and what pays the IETF bills - people who are not concerned wnough
with the health of the organization to register might not be the
best bet when it comes to fulfilling the nomcom duties

Scott

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:33:52 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
> least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer."

Does that include the "special invitation" IETF meetings ?

Also, what happens if each Address Space Manager has it's own IETF ?

http://www.IETF.ARPA
http://www.IETF.COM
http://www.IETF.CX

or...what about....?
http://IETF.no-ip.com
http://IETF.dyndns.tv
...are they on the air ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.yi.org
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.org
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://ipv8.myip.us
http://ipv8.dyn.ee
http://ipv8.community.net.au
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:43:29 -0500

From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
"...what pays the IETF bills..." ?

Doesn't your cyberspace leasing company (ARIN) help pay those bills ?
http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html

Also, if you look at the 3+ million .ORG owners, each paying $6 per year,
that is $18,000,000. At $250,000 per insider, that should fund 72 people
to fly around all year. That probably beats having them sitting in an office
watching the paint dry. At least they are recycling the money back into the
airline and hotel industries.

Latin American and the Caribbean have a lot of nice vacation spots. Will
the I* society be focusing there next ?
http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:27 AM
Subject: Re:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:43:22 -0700

> volunteers are qualified.

i agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning.  i just don't
think we want cheaters on the nomcom.

randy

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:30:39 -0400

> least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer."

Agreed.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:03:55 +0700

Date:        Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:43:22 -0700
    From:        Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | i agree with your conclusion but not your reasoning.  i just don't
  | think we want cheaters on the nomcom.

I don't think we need to go that far - it is more that there's simply
no accountable way to verify attendance, other than by use of the
registration information.

And actually, what we're probably actually checking is registration and
payment - attendance can't be verified either.   The secretariat might
know that a registration packet for a particular person was not picked up,
which might be a clue that the person didn't attend (but isn't proof), but
the opposite is not true - that a registration packet was picked up doesn't
mean the person attended, anyone can go and say "my name's Randy Bush" and
the packet goes away (so if you want to make it look like you've attended,
when you're not going to, and you're willing to pay, it is real easy, unless 
perhaps you're one of the very well known IETF people).

Even if we had the secretariat checking photo ID's, all that would mean was
that the person in question appeared at the registration desk, sometime
during the conference, which has no relationship at all with the reasons
given for imposing that condition, which assume that by attending, some
knowledge of how the IETF works, and who seems to be doing a good job, is
acquired.  Collecting the registration packet imparts none of that.

So, while I certainly have no objection to the proposed change, maybe we
should be more honest about reality, and simply say that to be qualified,
the person must have paid for attendance at 2 of the past 3 IETF meetings...
(and simply forget about actual attendance)   As I follow the process, that's
what we've actually been requiring for the past N years.

In any case, this part of the requirement is fine, either as suggested, or
as above.

But if we're going to change this paragraph, perhaps we can review the "2
of the last 3" one more time.   Rather than just suggest "n of the last m"
with some different values of n and m, which is what has been done before,
perhaps a slightly different approach.

How about:
	has attended 2 of the last 3, or attended one of the last 3
	and at least 6 IETF meetings (anytime).

I think that still covers things - attending one recent meeting means
that there will be some perspective of current events, and not just what
the organisation was like 10 years ago, and attending 6 meetings over
however long should be enough to gain enough familiarity with how the
IETF works.

"Attended" here is meant however is decided when the above issue is resolved.

[Aside: and no, I am not attempting to cut out those who don't attend at
all, if we could agree with a mechanism to allow doc authors, etc, to
be included, that would be great, it's just that we have so far failed to
ever agree on a formula that includes that - I'm just trying to find a
scheme that works to allow people to participate more, when they can't
get to almost every IETF meeting].

The "6" is also just a first attempt - other numbers, 4, 5, 8, ... would
work too.

kre

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:55:53 -0700

i'm going to suggest the opposite. perhaps we should change it to:

> "Members of the IETF community must have registered for at

the reason is that it's fairly simple to demonstrate that someone registered. it is problematic to determine if someone actually attended.

if i just show up, collect my badge, and get back on the plane does that count as "attendence". what if i'm there for one meeting, one day, or one week?

/mtr

ps: although i appreciate your inclusive instincts, if these guys attended and didn't pay, i think giving them the boot would be more appropriate. however, they get to slide by based on the wording currently in effect.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:22:36 -0400

> if i just show up, collect my badge, and get back on the plane does that count as "attendence". what if i'm there for one meeting, one day, or one week?

The goal is to select from those who attended.  Changing the text to
base eligibility on registration will make the reader wonder unless
there is extra explanation.  There's an extremely high overlap among
those who registered/paid and those who attended -- enough that I
wouldn't worry about the few exceptions.  I would just leave it as
registered and attended, which is nice and clear and concise, and be
done.  80-20 rule etc.

If you want to be explicit, what about people who register and just show
up for a single session?  If they're excluded, how about those who come
for just one day?  IMHO leave it at the original suggestion, it's close
enough (very), doesn't confuse anyone, and doesn't get into nitpicking.

...Scott

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:07:00 -0700

> enough (very), doesn't confuse anyone, and doesn't get into nitpicking.

scott - my point is that if you leave out "and attended" then there is no ambiguity. when you add "and attended" you introduce ambiguity.

/mtr

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:23 -0400 (EDT)

I wouldd suggest changing it to

"Members of the IETF community must have paid for registration at and 
attended at least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to volunteer."

Paying for registration is a pretty clear thing which usually creates
even more of a paper trail and this avoids any confusion with the fact
that you can register early via the IETF web site and then never pay.

There really hasn't been any problem with determining attendence that I
can tell, which is currently determined by the Secretariate. The list of
volunteers is made public so people can protest those they think are not
qualified although if there is a name no one recognizes that would be
unlikely.

I am writing this at the IEEE 802.11/802.15/802.18/802.19 joint Iterim
Meeting in Monterey, California. They have pretty clear rules of the
type we could adopt if we wanted. In particular, attendence at an 802
meeting is defined as attending at least 75% of the time slots (morning
/ afternoon / evening) and attendence at a time slot is defined as
physically being at a business meeting during 90% of the time of that
time slot. Of course, in IEEE 802 things are decided by voting so voting
rights, which are based on meeting attendence, are very important. And,
of course, they really don't have a mechanism to check all this with
much certainty.

I don't think we need something that harsh, but we could add something
like

"Attending an IETF meeting is defined as being physically present at and
enterning the required identification information on the attendence list
at at least three non-overlapping IETF working group meetings."

This isn't perfect or perfectly enforceable. I think those who use one
day attendence as a basis for nomcom eligibility are violating the
spirit of the nomcom requirement. Still, I think this suggested rule is
a reasonable minimum requirement.

I don't want to re-argue the whose basis for nomcom eligiblity but we 
have gone over it time and time again and consistently had a consensus 
that, while by no means perfect, the IETF meeting physical attendence 
requirement is the simplest way to do more or less what we want. The 
fact that attendence can not be perfectly determined does not require 
that we abandon that.

Donald

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Marshall Rose wrote:

> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:55:53 -0700
> From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
> To: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re:
> 
> the reason is that it's fairly simple to demonstrate that someone
> registered. it is problematic to determine if someone actually
> attended.
> 
> if i just show up, collect my badge, and get back on the plane does
> that count as "attendence". what if i'm there for one meeting, one
> day, or one week?
> 
> /mtr
> 
> ps: although i appreciate your inclusive instincts, if these guys
> attended and didn't pay, i think giving them the boot would be more
> appropriate. however, they get to slide by based on the wording
> currently in effect.

======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 10:27:16 -0700

At 10:07 AM 9/11/2002 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
>scott - my point is that if you leave out "and attended" then there is no 
>ambiguity. when you add "and attended" you introduce ambiguity.

The dilemma is between what we actually care about, versus what we can 
easily measure.

We care about attendance.  (Well, actually, we care about participation.)

The closest mechanical measure of this is registration.  If we try for 
anything closer, we won't be able to administer the mechanism of using it.

So if we pay attention to ease of administration, the rule must be stated 
as thoroughly unambiguous.  Hence the modification that Marshall is suggesting.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:50:45 -0700

Dave,

>anything closer, we won't be able to administer the mechanism of using it.

We also have the working group rosters that people write their names 
in.  That might be a possible way of validating that someone one also 
participated in the meeting.

Bob

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:58:10 -0400 (EDT)

> participated in the meeting.

once upon a time these were typed into a database but that stopped 
a while back - they are still being done as part of the documentation
process needed in today's standardization world (they are kept at
the secretariat for retrieval if needed) so it would be laborious
to use the sign in sheets as proof

Scott

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:58:49 -0400

> as thoroughly unambiguous.  Hence the modification that Marshall is suggesting.

I don't think we should let go of the heart of all this, that we want
active and experienced participants involved.  Technically you can use
registration as a requirement and cover that, since participation
depends on registration, but the point of the requirement evaporates if
that's all you say.  I still like Phil's original suggestion,
"registered for and attended", which at least expresses it partially.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:20:23 -0400

> I still like Phil's original suggestion,

Let's be pragmatic too. If person Y comes along and says "But person X
didn't attend, even though they registered, so I object to him/her
being on nomcom", what happens to our process now? How will this issue
be resolved?

We'd be advised to have a rule that avoids ambiguities and stick to
rules where it is relatively easy to verify one way or what a person's
status is.

And what does "attended" mean after all? spent 5 minutes in 3 WG
sessions but then hung out in the hall the rest of the time? Let's not
go there. Diminishing returns (at best).

Thomas

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:31:45 -0400 (EDT)

Nothing is totally unambiguous. Right now the rules say that the
Secretariate decides if someone has attended. So operationally, it is
perfectly well defined. You present your arguments to the Secretariate
and they give an answer.

Of course, like everything else, you can imagine cases where it got
further appealed and ultimately ended up in the court system in which
case "attended", in the absence of any further definition by the IETF,
would be interpreted as whatever the judge/jury thought it should mean.  
If we want things to be more precise and less flexible, we should add
verbage, such as the one sentence I suggested to define "attendence" for
this purpose.

Donald

PS: Nomcom selection stability is also important so there should be a
clear cut off, with reasonable notice, for all objections to those on
the volunteer list. Any complaints about non-attendence after that cut
off are ignored.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:20:23 -0400
> From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
> To: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Re:
> 

--

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:15:14 -0700

At 11:09 PM 9/11/2002 -0400, Mark Allman wrote:
> > The dilemma is between what we actually care about, versus what we
> > can easily measure.
>
>I have always found it odd that in an organization that does not
>require meeting attendance and makes no formal decisions at meetings
>requires one to attend meetings to be eligible to choose the
>leadership of the body.

1.  If you have a better criterion that is equally practical to apply, feel 
free to suggest it.

2.  Although participation in the IETF does not require showing up at the 
meetings, any practical consideration of the job requirements will show 
that leadership of the IETF does.  So it helps to have some idea of what 
those meetings are about.  You can't have that idea concretely unless you 
go to the meetings yourself.

d/

----------

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:58:07 -0400

--On Wednesday, 11 September, 2002 14:58 -0400 Scott Bradner
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> We also have the working group rosters that people write
>> their names  in.  That might be a possible way of validating
>> that someone one also  participated in the meeting.
> 
> once upon a time these were typed into a database but that
> stopped  a while back - they are still being done as part of
> the documentation process needed in today's standardization
> world (they are kept at the secretariat for retrieval if
> needed) so it would be laborious to use the sign in sheets as
> proof

Perhaps more to the point, if someone who is basically a
non-attendee wants to get onto the nomcom sufficiently much to
pay registration fees for standing around the halls, nothing
would prevent him or her from wandering into enough WG meeting
rooms for long enough to write a name on a few blue sheets (or
to ask someone else to do it).   Those sheets are just not a
very good check on someone who wants to beat the system.  And
those who understand the spirit of the rule and want to work
with it are, IMO, extremely unlikely to volunteer for the Nomcom.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:13:32 -0400

--On Wednesday, 11 September, 2002 08:55 -0700 Marshall Rose
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> the reason is that it's fairly simple to demonstrate that
> someone registered. it is problematic to determine if someone
> actually attended.
> 
> if i just show up, collect my badge, and get back on the plane
> does that count as "attendence". what if i'm there for one
> meeting, one day, or one week?

Marshall, like you, I appreciate clear, interpretable, and
unambiguous rules.   But, even given my earlier comment about
people who are trying to work within the spirit of the system
versus others, I'd split the above a bit:  Make "registration"
the criterion, but define things so that "registration" is
defined as a process that requires someone to identify
themselves (done now) and pick up that badge in order to be
considered "registered".  In other words, you need to pay, and
you need to show up long enough to collect that badge.

If, after that, you immediately go home and do that for two out
of three meetings, but still want to volunteer for the nomcom,
we aren't going to be able to write rules good enough to stop
you, at least without really bogging ourselves down procedurally.

> ps: although i appreciate your inclusive instincts, if these
> guys attended and didn't pay, i think giving them the boot
> would be more appropriate. however, they get to slide by based
> on the wording currently in effect.

Absent registration, and payment, we have _no_ way to verify
attendance that works in the general case.  I've reviewed enough
blue sheets in the last several years to be quite confident
that, if we based eligibility on them, Mr D. Duck and Mr. M.
Mouse would be eligible.

      john

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:44:17 -0700

John and all,

  I guess the real or more appropriate question is, why should anyone
that wishes to attend to prevented from doing so?

> with it are, IMO, extremely unlikely to volunteer for the Nomcom.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208