Subject: Comments For I-D: draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 (was Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 07:18:47 +0200

This message is reply to an author of a new draft under ietf discussion.
If this list is not the correct place to discuss such matter, then the
list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to
discuss such new work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Moonesamy,
(the Author of draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00)

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
mention diversity in the draft related to members selected.

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.

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.
[1]  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-crocker-nomcom-process-00.txt

AB> you need to define *remote contributor* in the draft. When the
authors define it then I can amend or edit. You need to mention that
most of meeting of IETF per year are in one region which makes some
from other regions to contribute remotely.

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.

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.

AB> you need to add what are the remote memebrs responsibilities,
because they may be similar or different than the other memebrs.

my answers to your questions below,

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:50 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi Abdussalam,
>
>
> Thanks for explaining why you support the draft.  I am going to list some questions.  Please read them as points to consider.  There isn't any obligation to provide comments.

You mean the draft should consider,

>
>  - What is your opinion about helping the "pie get larger"?

No we don't want things to get larger for others to eat, we want
things to get smarter for others to use, share, and develop equally.

>
>
>  - What would be an acceptable way of determining whether someone
>    has been contributing to the IETF over a period of five meetings?

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

>  - Dave Cridland suggested that working groups provide a smallish set of
>    volunteers each for the selection process.  Is it okay to leave it
>    to the working group chair to make the decision?

<I will send you discusses/answers offline>
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
more reasons than what was presented in the draft, I think it is nice
if you add more and change info to renew this draft for more further
discusses. Thanks.

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:21:16 +0100

> list's responsible Chair is required to give details of where to

I have no idea what a "list's responsible chair" is, but there is an ITEF list
dedicated for the discussion of issues related to NomCom.

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

"This mailing list is a relocation of the mailing list used by the
(now-concluded)NomCom working group, and reopened for discussion of the cureent
proposals for revision of the Nomcom process."

> Please note that I was told not to post more discuss messages
> on this list

That is an interesting statement, IMHO. Had you said "requested", I would have
understood. Had you said "warned of the consequences if you continued to post in
a particular way", I would have known what was going on. But "told not to post"
is, AFAIK only achievable through a posting ban, which you don't seem to have
received.

Adrian

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 08:24:38 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>

    > "told not to post" is, AFAIK only achievable through a posting ban,
    > which you don't seem to have received.

Yet.

	Noel