Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:43:26 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 22:18 28-06-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I think the draft still needs more details, for example, the Abstract
>says to give remote contributors eligible to serve but how many
>remote, it is not-reasonable/not-practical to have most remote, and it
>is not fare/diverse to have all not remote. Furthermore, you did not

I will work on the text in the Introduction section and change the 
Abstract accordingly.

>mention diversity in the draft related to members selected.

The text in the draft is about IETF participants who were at the 
meeting site and IETF participants who were not at the meeting 
site.  The draft mentioned that some IETF participants cannot be in 
the room at the meeting site as they cannot afford the cost of 
travelling to that location.

>AB> I prefer if you refer me, or the discussion list chair can refer
>me to somewhere we can discuss this new draft. Please note that I was
>told not to post more discuss messages on this list, so the chair or
>you are required to respond on this issue related to discussing the
>draft, because this may be my last post regarding this I-D.

I suggest using the [email-masked] mailing list for discussions 
of possible revisions of the NomCom process.

>AB> the update may need an informational draft (or better
>introduction) like what [1] is doing, so if we know the information on
>process challenges we will know the best practice. I like the [1]
>draft I think it needs to be renewed including remote members
>possibilities.

I am not the author of that draft.  The draft I submitted is 
unrelated to that draft.

>AB> you need to define *remote contributor* in the draft. When the

I received similar feedback from other people.

>Section 2> The section is not reasonable because you changed with no
>strong reasons. Why you want to change totally, I recommend to add
>idea not change. As to give opportunity to additional memebrs that are
>remote. These additional memebrs will have a special condition. This
>way you don't change the conditions for the current procedure of
>selecting f2f memebrs, and you may limit the number of remote
>contributors maybe 10 % of the total memebrs.

The why is mentioned in the Introduction Section of the draft.  The 
draft updates RFC 3777.

>AB> suggest in Section 2> I suggest not to update the text of the RFC
>but to add new rule for selecting few remote participants.

I have been looking into that.

>Where are the five meetings (is it a f2f meeting?)and what kind of
>contributing you are asking?

The five meetings are defined in RFC 3777.

>I really want to focus questions related to the new draft not other
>issues. Therefore, I think the draft needs to involve what was
>discussed on the list (feedback). Updating this RFC procedure may need

I take all feedback about a draft into account.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:10:52 +0200

Hi Moonesamy,

I support this work and my comments below;

> travelling to that location.

IETF People are in the IETF-Rooms either physically or
virtually/remote, so all participants that SHOULD get this I-D's
Eligibility they SHOULD attend rooms physicaly/remotely for the five
meetings. The IETF has to get a system ready to register
remote-participants attending ROOMS, but we may need a condition on
how many rooms that thoes participants SHOULD attend and/or for how
long.

Please note that people may not attend meetings because their special
needs, you may add this important reason that the IETF needs to look
at giving chance to disabilities.

> of possible revisions of the NomCom process.

Thanks,

> I am not the author of that draft.  The draft I submitted is

It is ok, I recommend using the information or the challenges
mentioned, but If it was not renewed then I will do it,

> The why is mentioned in the Introduction Section of the draft.  The

I ment that you should not update the way to select, but only update
that way of selecting new remote memebrs to the f2f attending memebrs.

> I have been looking into that.

Ok, so I understand that you will do something for this special type
of memebr selected. So the nomcom memebrs will not be all the same
type, most selected the old way and some memebrs (remote) as selected
in a special way.

I recommend you request to join one author of RFC3777 to co-author
with you this work to because we may get more history issues that
thoes authors went through,

AB