Subject: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:50:56 -0700

Hello,

RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet 
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF 
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.

draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to 
allow remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be 
eligible to serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ).

Could you please read the draft and comment?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:00:48 +0100

SM,

    I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.

    Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However, in
remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody
attended to a session.

    Even, if we had a registration similar to the face to face meetings,
it would be difficult to verify that the people attended to a session
remotely (even if you correlated registry vs. jabber/webex logs it would
be difficult to know if it is really the person registred, somebody else
or even a bot). I guess that there would be many ways to game the system.

    As I said I like the idea and I think that we should try to make it
work. I do not know if all the locks and tools to protect the system
against some sort of abuse should be in the draft or not, but we should
address those (before or in parallel with adopting/working on the draft.)

Regards,
as

On 6/27/13 10:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> allow remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible
> to serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition (

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:03:57 +0000

Hi,

Section 2 says:
   RFC 3777 [RFC3777], Section 5, "Nominating Committee Operation",
   Paragraph 1 of Rule 14, is replaced as follows:

      Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
      last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of
      the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer.

A few questions:

(1) How do you define "remote attendance"?

(2) How does the secretariat determine whether someone has remotely attended? (Based on whatever definition of remote attendance you have in mind.)

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:33:31 +0000

> (2) How does the secretariat determine whether someone has remotely attended? (Based on whatever definition of remote attendance you have in mind.)

When we started having one day passes, the question was raised about whether attending on a one day pass "counts" for NomCom eligibility. If I remember correctly the answer was no. So we couldn't let listening in on one session count, right?  

I guess you can prove attendance by Jabber log, but that's not really helpful IMO.

Yoav

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:38:49 +0900

> I guess you can prove attendance by Jabber log

as much of the acculturation happens outside of wgs, we can have the nsa
install jabber spies in the hallway.  and they log everything!

randy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:50:35 +0100

On 06/27/2013 10:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow
> remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to
> serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition (

I think physically attending 1 meeting might not be enough
esp. if a nomcom were selected that had a lot of folks on
who'd only ever been to one meeting. But I'm sympathetic
to the goal and am sure some qualification rule (*) could
be worked out. (Probably after about 1000 messages;-)

However, before getting into that I'd like to hear from
folks who've been on or chaired nomcoms. I know a lot of
it is done remotely, but how important is the f2f part
that happens during meetings? Would it really be ok if
say 5 voting members could never come to a meeting
whilst serving? (And I think that'd not be an unlikely
outcome.)

S.

(*) Like I said, too early to get into it, but the nomcom
selection process could also require that the voting
members collectively have been to N meetings, with each
voting member able to contribute at most M to that total.
Say with N=30 and M=4 or something, and keep running the
random selection until you get 10 voting members that
satisfy that. And if we went there, we could also require
that nomcom as a group have written a number of RFCs
perhaps or even have some folks with Jari's h-index>3
or something. We could have lots of fun with all that:-)

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:06:36 -0400

On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
> 
> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ).
> 

SM, 
I read the draft, I think there might be some merit to this proposal but I think the threshold issue should be clarified. 
What does "one of the last five mean" during an IETF meeting? 

I think the threshold of having attended one meeting is too low, I would relax the rule to say something like this:
"must have attended at least 5 meetings of the last 15 and including one of the last 5". 
15 meetings is 5 years, I know that is a long time, t this will allow people that that have been involved for a long time but have limited 
resources to attend to participate in Nomcom/recall processes. 

Q: do you want to limit how many "infrequent" attendees can be on Nomcom just like the number of people from a single organization can sign a
recall ? 

	Olafur

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:29:53 -0700

Hi Arturo,
>     I read the draft and although I like the idea I have some concerns.

Thanks for taking the time to read the draft.  I'll comment below.

>remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody

I am aware of a case where the person attending the IETF meeting is 
not the one who's name is on the badge.  I don't think that there was 
any malice or that it is a problem as that person will not game the system.

>or even a bot). I guess that there would be many ways to game the system.

I do not wish to suggest having registration.  The IETF does not 
require registration to participate in working group discussions.  I 
agree that there can be many ways to game the system.

I will quote the second paragraph of the Introduction section of the draft:

   "The IETF Trust considers any submission to the IETF intended by the
    Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
    RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity
    [RFC5378].  Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions
    as well as written and electronic communications, made through a
    Jabber room."

It would be a serious issue, in my opinion, if the IETF cannot 
identify its contributors.  There are people who currently contribute 
through Jabber.  It has never been considered as a problem.

>address those (before or in parallel with adopting/working on the draft.)

I agree that you and I should try to make it work.  One of the 
problems of putting all the details in a document is that we lose the 
flexibility to, for example, address some sort of abuse that we did 
not specify clearly at the time the document was written.  I would 
not look for locks and tools to protect the system; I would look for 
something else.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:44:24 +0100

I have a general question.

    What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to
meetings?

    - That nomcom participants know the IETF
    - That nomcom participant know in person people appointed to IESG,
IAB, etc
    - To avoid game/abuse the system by an organization?

    etc.

    I think that something that the draft need to say is why we need to
change the requirement, is it obsolete? why?

Regards,
as

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:59:41 +0000

>    What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to

Acculturation: the opportunity over time to absorb the IETF culture and become a part of it.  The other points you raised are valid, but this is the main thing.

I think acculturation is possible for remote attendees in theory, but not with the current level of support for off-site participation—while what we have is great for helping people to participate in selected working group meetings, it doesn't provide anything like the experience of an on-site participant.

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:06:22 +0100

Ted,

    Thanks.

    Perhaps then Olafur recommendation:

	may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest "one of the last 6" (instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not change too much.

Regards,
as

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:11:08 +0000

> 	may be a good compromise. Also, I would suggest "one of the last 6" (instead of 5). I guess in two years the IETF does not change too much.

I think Olafur's suggestion is a good one, and I tend to support it, but bear in mind that the problem is not the IETF changing: it's the former attendee changing.   We want them to return to the well from time to time to take another deep draught, so that they do not lose the unique flavor that the waters bear.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:36:26 -0400

> Could you please read the draft and comment?

SM - 

I have read the draft, and believe that it moves the qualification to 
serve on the NomCom in the right direction.  Long-term, it would be ideal 
if remote IETF participation was equivalent (both as an experience and as 
a NomCom qualification) to in-person IETF participation.

Noting agreement in the direction, the reality of remote participation 
today is somewhat different.  In recent years, I have been a frequent 
remote participant and occasional on-site participant, and while it is
possible to effectively contribute to working group efforts remotely, 
such success is predicated on knowing quite a bit about IETF processes 
and workflow, and it not clear to me that a remote participant picks 
up the necessary background at anywhere near the same rate as on-site 
participants.  As a result, I am concerned that the proposed language 
in draft wouldn't necessarily provide for experienced IETF participants 
in the NomCom, and/or those who have well-informed insight into what 
makes for good IAB/IESG/IAOC members.

Note also that the proposed language also increases the possibility of 
"capture" (i.e. the ability of an single organization to inappropriately
skew the outcome of the process) in that a relatively large pool of 
remote participants could quickly be made NomCom-eligible by having them 
attend the very next IETF meeting, and then all volunteered to serve on 
the NomCom.  While this is not a particularly likely course for a party
not happy with the IETF, it is an aspect to be considered in the NomCom
processes.

With an view towards finding a middle ground, would it be possible to
change your proposed text from:

      "Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
      last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 
      of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer."

to this:

      "Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
      last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least _2_ 
      of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer."

The change from 1 to 2 meetings being in-person significantly reduces the
potential risk of capture while also increasing the exposure level of
NomCom volunteers to dynamics that occur in the hallways and between the
formal IETF working group sessions.  The net result recognizes the value
of remote participation, moves in the right direction, but does so at a
more moderate pace than you originally propose.

Thoughts?
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  NomCom '95 Chair (back before any NomCom
              procedures existed... :-)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:27 +0000

Hi,
  First, as a comment, I guess there is people who follow more IETF remotely than other in place.
  Second, I like this idea of changing the threshold.
  Third, In the other hand, since there are several positions that are fill using this RFC maybe we can place a testbed. 50% can be fill using the current way and 50% using the proposed way, sounds crazy but it might be a good beginning.

Thanks,

Alejandro,

Este mensaje ha sido enviado gracias al servicio BlackBerry de Movilnet

-----Original Message-----
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:06:36 
To: S Moonesamy<[email-masked]>
Cc: Internet Whining TF<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

SM, 

	Olafur

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:48:24 +0200

John,

I agree with everything you wrote.  I especially applaud SM for getting
out there with new ideas, and I like the idea of opening up eligibility
a bit more.  John's proposed change would reduce risk of capture.  I do
think that risk is also mitigated through other mechanisms (like
limiting the number of people with the same affiliation from joining the
NOMCOM), but Ted's point is also important, that people have some feel
for how the IETF operates, both in person and on mailing list.  John's
proposal seems to strike a good balance.

Eliot

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:08:37 -0400

I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this change.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:18:25 -0400

I have not read the thread yet, on purpose.
As a person who has done significant remote participation myself, and has also
observed the difficulty new people have in understanding how things fit
together, I can not support your specific proposal, but I support the idea.

I would suggest:

2.  Updated Text from RFC 3777

      Members of the IETF community become eligible for the NomCom by
      having attended at least 3 of the last 7 IETF meetings in person.

      Once a person has become eligible for NomCom, they retain their
      elibility to NomCom by attending at least 1 of the last 4 IETF meetings
      in person, and at least 3 of the last 5 meetings in person or remotely.

      Should a person lose eligibility for NomCom, they return to not-eligible.

(We could, true to form, describe this as a state machine with three states,
or even a simpler to write in Verilog one with 7-8 states)
===

I have raised the bar slightly over your requirements in the form of still
requiring 3 meetings to be attended, but lengthening the time to 7 meetings,
such that a person who attends one meeting/year, if they do it right, can
become eligible easily.  I feel perhaps that in the becoming eligible
process, that some of the 4 meetings not-attended should be clearly attended
remotely, but I'm sure how to specify that.

I have lowered the bar to remain eligible such that a person who not travel
for 12 months (such as someone on maternity/paternity leave. Civilized
countries get at least 1 year..) could remain eligible.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:21:08 -0400

> remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that somebody

We need to have registration for remote participation, even if we charge
zero.   I believe that perhaps we need to provide some magic token in jabber
or in the NoteWell slide, that needs to be used by remote participants to
check-in. They have to do that during the meeting itself.

I also ask whether remote participation on the plenary should be "mandatory"

We also need to permit judgement calls.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:24:26 -0400

> whilst serving? (And I think that'd not be an unlikely

Please note two things:
1) under the original proposal and my revised one, you have
   attend in person somewhat regularly.

2) for the November meeting, the nomcom *itself* must be present.
   I think it unrealistic to think that the nomcom itself could
   be remote for that meeting.  For the summer and march meeting,
   the nomcom could be anywhere.

so, even if you are eligible, don't volunteer for the nomcom if you can't
attend the november meeting.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:31:39 +0100

> 2) for the November meeting, the nomcom *itself* must be present.

Tend to agree.

>    the nomcom could be anywhere.

Not this year:-)

> attend the november meeting.

But doesn't that run counter to one aspect of SM's otherwise
reasonable goal? (And if getting randomly picked for nomcom
implied some I* thing has to pay your way to the Nov meeting,
then this is IMO a *much* larger change proposal.)

S.

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:35:37 -0400

Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where we did not
charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly attendance diverged, I
would strongly support at least some meeting fee for remote attendance.
 There's also the key fact that the IETF is funded by IETF meeting fees and
ISOC.   Maybe the remote fee is scaled by region of attendee or such if
there is concern that it is burdensome.

I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is nothing at all
like being at IETF.  I can see modifying NomCom eligibility constraints
slightly - but I really do not think that remote attendees will have the
necessary experience and acculturation unless they have attended a number
of IETFs in person.

Having served on a NomCom a long time ago, I'd say that an inexperienced
volunteer set gives substantially more strength and bias to the non-voting
members, who are definitionally very familiar with the IETF and the
candidates for office.

I am not convinced the trade-off is worth it - but I can see the benefit of
modifying eligibility constraints to keep people eligible for longer.  I'd
like to see a way to include active and experienced remote attendees, but
am quite cautious on that.

Alia

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:36:08 +0100

> check-in. They have to do that during the meeting itself.

We could require room registration for the XMPP ("Jabber") chatrooms, and
have remote participants fill in an equivalent of the blue sheet in order
to join the room.

I'm not sure if the current XMPP implementation supports this, but it will
work in principle with a number of existing deployed implementations.

(And, note, we no longer have to care about Google Talk interop, which
makes things easier).

Dave.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:38:13 -0700

Hi Alejandro,
> remotely than other in place.

Yes.

Here's is an extract from a Jabber log:

   "I don't think I've seen a WG chatroom this full before
    Well the future of the free world is at stake here :-)"

>   Second, I like this idea of changing the threshold.

Thanks for reading the draft and providing feedback.

>   Third, In the other hand, since there are several positions that 
> are fill using this RFC maybe we can place a testbed. 50% can be 
> fill using the current way and 50% using the proposed way, sounds 
> crazy but it might be a good beginning.

I don't think that it sounds crazy.  A good beginning is when people 
make suggestions like you did.  I don't know yet whether I will say 
okay to the idea.  I would like to read all the suggestions, 
including yours, and then decide.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:48:48 -0400

--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:50 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...

While it risks taking us into a statistical rathole, I think
that notions like the above may be the sort of thing we should
look at.  

More broadly, I think we may need to try to figure out what we
really want and need on or from the Nomcom in this decade
(remembering that the system was designed for the rather
different times and IETF composition of the early 1990s and has
been tuned in minor ways but not carefully and openly reviewed
since) and then try to devise criteria to match.   It seems to
me that may require looking at separate aspects of things rather
than trying to come up with a single surrogate for everything.  

For example, as the above suggests, there are some purposes for
which we probably need to look at overall Nomcom composition
rather that just individual qualifications.  Measures to avoid
capture fall into that category.  Whether the existing rules are
adequate in that regard or not, they represent on case where we
do look at total composition already.

We might want to look at whether some collections of
participants should be guaranteed representation or weighted
more heavily in the selection calculations (whether voting or
otherwise).  That raises the risk that SM identifies of pushing
us toward a Nomcom as a representative body of constituencies
demanding slots, but the advantages seem very strong for Dave
Crocker's proposal to guarantee a certain level of expertise and
some ideas to be sure that the perspective of remote
participants or other underrepresented populations are heard.
The question is how to find the right balance and then reach
sufficient consensus around the justification that we can hold
the line.   Not easy, but, at least IMO, probably worth the
investment it would take.

Similarly, I'm pretty sure that "groks the IETF" [1] is an
important and useful criterion.  I don't think "3 of last 5" is
a valid exclusive surrogate.  Perhaps what is needed is a list
of alternatives, any of which could demonstrate sufficient
familiarity with the culture.

If we separated the "IETF culture" requirement, I still think
that some level of participation, even face to face
participation is important.  I don't think that 3 face to face
meetings in 5 is needed for people who already understand the
culture; maybe some combination of remote participation and less
frequent attendance should be equally acceptable. 

"Participation" is similar.  If we think it is important, then
someone who is actively contributing to mailing lists and
document reviews and who is showing up in meeting Jabber logs
with useful comments is, IMO, a more appropriate Nomcom member
than someone whose company pays registration fees and travel
expenses and who then shows up at meetings and either goes to
the beach or sits in a few WG meetings reading email.  I don't
know how to eliminate the second (perhaps others have ideas) but
I can think of ways to identify the former as long as they are
not the exclusive "minimum participation" admission criteria.  

I would just hope that we don't fall into the trap of focusing
on what is easy to measure and quantify rather than what is
important and a good measure of what we are looking for.   It is
always tempting but, at least IMO, this issue is important
enough to the community in the long term that we ought to be
willing to invest some resources in it.   "3 of 5" may represent
an instance of that trap however well-intentioned it was when it
was instituted.

    john

[1] I wonder, its introduction into the OED notwithstanding, if
the use of that term marks some of us as being either from a
particular, increasingly-ancient, generation or is more
culturally idiosyncratic than is appropriate.

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:05:20 -0700

Hi,

I am strongly opposed to a remote meeting registration process and remote
meeting fees.
This increases the financial bias towards large corporate control of IETF
standards.
I like the IETF because anybody can comment on a draft or write a draft
without
paying fees.

I think there could be several ways to prove one has been recently involved
in the
IETF.  IMO I-D or RFC authorship shows more involvement than just showing up
at an IETF.  People who never read, write or comment on any drafts can be
more nomcom-qualified (by attendance metrics) than somebody who worked on
10 drafts
over the same time span.

Andy

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]
> > wrote:
>
>>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:14:06 -0400

--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 09:35 -0400 Alia Atlas
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where
> we did not charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly
> attendance diverged, I would strongly support at least some
> meeting fee for remote attendance.  There's also the key fact
> that the IETF is funded by IETF meeting fees and ISOC.

FWIW, so would I, if only because a large fraction of where that
fee goes (at least given some assumptions about disposition of
registration fee and ISOC money) is to support activities that
have little or nothing to do with actual meeting costs.   That
makes a fee for remote participates a matter of fairness, even
though I would hope that we could keep it low enough to avoid
discouraging participation (and maybe differentiate between a
lurker fee and an active remote participant fee).   Again,
creative thinking is called for, IMO.

>   Maybe
> the remote fee is scaled by region of attendee or such if

We already have a fee waiver mechanism.  It may need to be more
widely publicized and/or modified to reduce the load on the IETF
Chair if the number of requests rises, but I'd hope we could
avoid region-based formulae (if the reasons aren't clear, I can
elaborate).

> I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is
> nothing at all like being at IETF.  I can see modifying NomCom
> eligibility constraints slightly - but I really do not think
> that remote attendees will have the necessary experience and
> acculturation unless they have attended a number of IETFs in
> person.

See several previous notes on this list and the Nomcom one about
acculturation.  But, as to the difference in experience, I fully
agree that it is very different.   There is, however, a bit of a
chicken-and-egg problem: while I think the IESG and other
leadership bodies have good intentions toward remote (including
mailing-list-only) participants, having those bodies be more
accountable to remote folks is probably key to making that
experience better.  I have doubts as to whether it will every be
good enough that the average remote-only participant will every
fully understand the culture and actors, but maybe we don't need
that as a criterion for success.

    john

> 
> Having served on a NomCom a long time ago, I'd say that an
> inexperienced volunteer set gives substantially more strength
> and bias to the non-voting members, who are definitionally
> very familiar with the IETF and the candidates for office.
> 
> I am not convinced the trade-off is worth it - but I can see
> the benefit of modifying eligibility constraints to keep
> people eligible for longer.  I'd like to see a way to include
> active and experienced remote attendees, but am quite cautious
> on that.
> 
> Alia
> 
> 
>>     > Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended
>>     > to an IETF meeting. You have to register, pay and
>>     > collect your badge. However,
>> in
>>     > remote participation we do not have mechanisms to
>>     > verify that
>> somebody
>>     > attended to a session.
>> 
>> We need to have registration for remote participation, even
>> if we charge zero.   I believe that perhaps we need to
>> provide some magic token in jabber
>> or in the NoteWell slide, that needs to be used by remote
>> participants to check-in. They have to do that during the
>> meeting itself.
>>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:17:03 +0200

Michael,

I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of
remote participation.  If one wants to listen in, that should only
require the appropriate software and a network connection.  If one
actually wants to participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex
or Meetecho system.  The point of this is that there has should be some
demonstration that someone substantially participated in an IETF event.

Speaking of which, let me also raise another issue.  As those of you who
will be there in person will see in Berlin, we have a *vast* number of
BoFs planned, and this could lead to a vast number of additional new
working groups.  We won't have room for them all.  In addition, I myself
am co-chair of a working group who is not intended to meet – *ever*. 
Linked to the issue of NOMCOM is the idea that working groups actually
meet at IETFs.  Some certainly will continue to do so.  Others, on the
other hand, require more bandwidth.  Case and point: the httpbis working
group has held two interim meetings and two more are planned.  All off
site.  Should these people be counted?  If so, how?

And yes, it is possible to make this so complex that nobody would be
able to figure out who is eligible.

And so, as I said, I'm fine with SM's idea, modulo John's suggested
edit.  But I also think it would be useful to look beyond that change as
well.

Eliot

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:54:35 -0400

Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > necessary experience and acculturation unless they have attended a number of
    > IETFs in person.

That's why, I am not in favour of significantly changing the criteria to
*become* nomcom eligible.  I really don't think anyone thinks that one can
become clueful about IETF culture without being there in person a few times.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:11:18 -0400

Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I think what you're getting at is that there are different types of remote
    > participation.  If one wants to listen in, that should only require the
    > appropriate software and a network connection.  If one actually wants to
    > participate, then one either has to get onto a WeBex or Meetecho system.  The
    > point of this is that there has should be some demonstration that someone
    > substantially participated in an IETF event.

I find that jabber+streamed mp3 is sufficient for a lot of things.
I do not think that one has to actively contribute as much as be available to
object to bad ideas.  So, we mostly need to register for that remotely
controlled hum generator.

    > to do so.  Others, on the other hand, require more bandwidth.  Case and point:
    > the httpbis working group has held two interim meetings and two more are
    > planned.  All off site.  Should these people be counted?  If so, how?

I think that once we have a mechanism to count remote participation, we will
use it.  I think that an interim meeting is just part of the in-person
meeting that follows it.  That makes it simple and direct.

An in-person interim meeting may provide substantially more "indoctrination"
to a new person than a full blown meeting.

    > And so, as I said, I'm fine with SM's idea, modulo John's suggested edit.  But
    > I also think it would be useful to look beyond that change as well.

+1

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:26:13 -0700

Hello,

I'll reply to several messages below to reduce ietf@ mail traffic.

At 03:03 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>(2) How does the secretariat determine whether someone has remotely 
>attended? (Based on whatever definition of remote attendance you have in mind.)

I prefer not to get into a definition of "remote attendance" for 
now.  For what it is worth the current system only tells us that a 
person has paid the registration fee.  That person could have gone 
shopping, fallen asleep during the WG sessions, or sitting in a 
corner as he or she does not have a dot and is not considered as important.

Question (2) is based on the assumption that the IETF Secretariat has 
to make that determination.  I am leaving question (1) open as I 
would like to listen to what you and everyone else has to say 
first.  Question (2) could be addressed after that.

At 03:33 27-06-2013, Yoav Nir wrote:
>When we started having one day passes, the question was raised about 
>whether attending on a one day pass "counts" for NomCom eligibility. 
>If I remember correctly the answer was no. So we couldn't let 
>listening in on one session count, right?

Yes.

>I guess you can prove attendance by Jabber log, but that's not 

Agreed.

>be worked out. (Probably after about 1000 messages;-)

The MySQL field reserved only has two characters for the message 
count.  As such the limit is 99 messages. :-)

Please note that I am not ignoring the view expressed above.

>whilst serving? (And I think that'd not be an unlikely

I'll leave to folks who have been on NomCom to comment.

>or something. We could have lots of fun with all that:-)

My first response to the above would be no.  However, there is 
something in the above which is interesting.  Once I get a sense of 
the high level picture I may get back to it.

At 04:06 27-06-2013, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>I read the draft, I think there might be some merit to this proposal 
>but I think the threshold issue should be clarified.

Ok.

>What does "one of the last five mean" during an IETF meeting?

   "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."

It's any one meeting out of that.

>I think the threshold of having attended one meeting is too low, I 
>would relax the rule to say something like this:
>15 meetings is 5 years, I know that is a long time, t this will 
>allow people that that have been involved for a long time but have limited

I tried that in another draft.  I dropped the proposal because of 
other NomCom-related issues.

>Q: do you want to limit how many "infrequent" attendees can be on 
>Nomcom just like the number of people from a single organization can sign a
>recall ?

The quick answer is yes.  One of the issues is the assumption behind 
"attended meetings".  There is also the question of fairness.  I will 
have to reconsider my answer based on the views that are expressed.

>a NomCom qualification) to in-person IETF participation.

My preference is to look for both short term and long term results.

>makes for good IAB/IESG/IAOC members.

Reality is a dream that comes true when there is agreement and 
commitment.  I have participated remotely.  In my opinion, it is not 
possible to contribute effectively unless one has read the draft 
being discussed.  Being on-site does not mean that a person has done that.

The reality is that some working groups are not working and it has 
been like that since several meetings.  The reality is that one or 
more directorates have not been working since several years and 
nothing was done about that.

What, among other things, make a good IAOC member is someone who 
reads the contracts before approving them.  I leave it to experienced 
IETF participants to state whether they consider that as well-informed or not.

There are three IAB members from Europe and one from China. There are 
two IESG members from Europe.  There is one IAOC member from 
Europe.  Everyone else is from the United States.  It has always been 
that way and that's how it will be.

I chatted with a student from Greece.  It was the middle of the night 
at his location.  He has never attended the IETF.  He writes code and 
participates in a working group.  He offered to explain to me the 
work being done in that working group.  In my opinion he has an 
understanding of the IETF.  My opinion is based on something he told me.

>not happy with the IETF, it is an aspect to be considered in the NomCom

There is a limit on affiliation.  Any attempt to "capture" will be visible.

>       of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer."

Please do not read this as antagonistic.  I will say no.  I am 
actually saying no to the interpretation of "attended".

>more moderate pace than you originally propose.

There is a potential risk of doing nothing.  Bernard explained 
something to me.  I think I understood what he wrote.  I would be 
lacking empathy if I blamed him.

I have one word for the proposal, fairness.  I would like to read the 
explanation of the IETF Chair if the potential risk of capture means 
that the IETF cannot be fair.

>               procedures existed... :-)

Was that during the clergy days? :-)

>I have not read the thread yet, on purpose.

Ok.

I would like to thank you for going out of your way to do something I asked.

>or even a simpler to write in Verilog one with 7-8 states)

I agree that new people can have difficulty understanding how things 
fit together.

My quick response to the suggestion is no.  The reason is because of 
the way "attended" is being interpreted and because I don't think 
that it is good to have a high barrier of entry.

>countries get at least 1 year..) could remain eligible.

Thanks for the explanation.  There was an unrelated discussion about 
parents finding it difficult to attend IETF meetings.

>    the nomcom could be anywhere.

When is it summer? :-)

>that notions like the above may be the sort of thing we should

I left the door open for that.

Yes.

>investment it would take.

I need to get back to something Dave Crocker wrote.  There was a 
discussion (not on an IETF mailing list) which pointed to 
constituencies and representativity.  I don't think that excluding 
people is a good idea.  The last sentence, in a way, sums up what the 
proposal will have to achieve.

Yes.

>frequent attendance should be equally acceptable.

The "IETF culture" requirement is ambiguous.  Arturo asked a good 
question.  I would describe the side discussions as being about 
understanding why the IETF is doing X.

>not the exclusive "minimum participation" admission criteria.

My focus is "participation".

>important and a good measure of what we are looking for.   It is

I'll add that the trap is also focusing on the details prematurely.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:41:51 +0100

> become clueful about IETF culture without being there in person a few
That's possibly true.

That said, I have been to two meetings, none in the past five, and I
certainly don't think I'm automatically less clueful than all those who've
attended three of the past five.

In my favour, I've a few RFCs, including working group output, and I'm
co-chairing a working group.

Perhaps the volunteer selection process ought to be that working groups
provide a smallish set of volunteers each, and get rid of artificial
eligibility criteria which attempt to obliquely address real - and
important - criteria. I'd perhaps suggest that working group chairs cannot
be "volunteered" by their own working groups.

I suspect that doing things that way would both reflect participation
better, and produce a lot more engagement into the nomination process.

Dave.

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:44:38 +0000

Hi,

On Jun 27, 2013, at 18:26, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
 wrote:
> I prefer not to get into a definition of "remote attendance" for now.

sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote attendees be permitted to volunteer for NomCom without defining what defines a remote attendee.

>  For what it is worth the current system only tells us that a person has paid the registration fee.  That person could have gone shopping, fallen asleep during the WG sessions, or sitting in a corner as he or she does not have a dot and is not considered as important.

The issue you are raising - that limiting the NomCom pool to recent attendees of physical IETF meetings may have downsides - is valid. But at least the requirements the current policy sets are clearly defined.

Until you nail down what exactly defines a remote attendee, I can't really form an opinion on whether allowing them into the NomCom pool is a good idea or not.

Lars

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:00:17 -0700

> I prefer not to get into a definition of "remote attendance" for now.  

Then maybe we should wait for you to do so. This discussion is kind of pointless if we don't have shared definitions.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:02:39 -0800

> I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this change.

To be honest, I'm skeptical, myself.  I have attended a lot of
meetings remotely and I don't think that it provides enough
context to be able to provide the background for critical
decisions about leadership.  I'm also not sure what problem
it's trying to solve.

Melinda

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:29:36 -0700

At 09:44 27-06-2013, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote attendees be 
>permitted to volunteer for NomCom without defining what defines a 
>remote attendee.

Agreed.

>The issue you are raising - that limiting the NomCom pool to recent 
>attendees of physical IETF meetings may have downsides - is valid. 
>But at least the requirements the current policy sets are clearly defined.
>
>Until you nail down what exactly defines a remote attendee, I can't 
>really form an opinion on whether allowing them into the NomCom pool 
>is a good idea or not.

What I did in the initial draft is to work from the text already in 
RFC 3777.  It has been mentioned by several people that participation 
is a way for somebody to get IETF experience.   The question is how 
that participation can be defined.

At 10:00 27-06-2013, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Then maybe we should wait for you to do so. This discussion is kind 
>of pointless if we don't have shared definitions.

I think that the NomCom eligibility criteria should not discriminate 
between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process.  The view I got 
from a previous discussion of the draft is that "people from emerging 
regions are disenfranchised; that's how IETF culture works".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:42:52 -0700

> whilst serving? (And I think that'd not be an unlikely

I've been a voting member on 3 and liaison on 1.  I can't imagine a 
nomcom process succeeding without a significant amount of face-to-face time.

There are two reasons.  One is creating basic working relationships for 
this type of personnel selection topic -- especially when few of the 
members have much experience with such an exercise.  Much of nomcom is 
about haggling.  Trade-offs about and among candidates.  Debating what's 
true.  Debating what matters.  Debating combinatorials for slates.

All of that is made fundamentally easier -- and easier does not mean 
easy -- when each member has a sense of knowing the other members.  (As 
I recall, there are /many/ research studies about this sort of thing.)

The second reason is interviewing nomination candidates.  There is a 
'feel' for a candidate that one can get from f2f that is much harder to 
obtain with only a voice call.  That said, recent nomcoms seem to have 
de-valued f2f interviews.

So, yes, much of nomcom is thru voice conferencing.  But I believe the 
nature of the decision-making nomcom does requires the group to have had 
significant face-time.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:12:27 -0700

On Jun 27, 2013, at 10:29 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think that the NomCom eligibility criteria should not discriminate between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process.  

-1. Those choosing the leadership of an organization should understand more than the leadership of the one WG they have participated in.

> The view I got from a previous discussion of the draft is that "people from emerging regions are disenfranchised; that's how IETF culture works".

That's one view; another is "we need to be more creative on how to increase diversity". "Creative" doesn't mean "ignoring all obvious security and stability issues".

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:16:43 +0100

Thanks Moonesamy,

I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the world equal
opputunity. I made input related to this on the list because I found that I
am remote participant and there was limits and conditions which I don't
want. However, there may be some reasons that IETF done it that way which
the draft may need to clarify and solve,

AB

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-**eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow
> remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to serve
> on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/**
> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-**eligibility-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00>).
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:33:55 -0400

--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:29 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> sorry, but it's silly to attempt to propose that remote
>> attendees be  permitted to volunteer for NomCom without
>> defining what defines a  remote attendee.
> 
> Agreed.

I'm not sure I agree and want to come back to an earlier point
-- we should figure out what we really need and want and then
see if we can work out the details to make it work.  If we
conclude --as I think some have suggested-- that we don't want
often-remote volunteers on the Nomcom no matter what, or that we
don't want people who cannot just about guarantee physical
attendance at all relevant meetings to serve on the Nomcom, or
that we are unwilling to consider relaxing the current 3 of 5
rule for other reasons, then I'd argue that putting energy into
defining appropriate criteria for being a remote attendee is
pretty much a waste of time.  If we do decide we want to open
the door to remote attendees on the Nomcom and later discover
that we can't agree on criteria, that is just how it goes.

In principle, one could consider the "do we want this" and "what
would the criteria be" questions in either order.  In practice,
I think the former question is the more important and should be
considered first because it informs how we really feel about
diversity and the role of participants who don't attend a lot of
f2f meetings.   I also believe that, while I might be very
difficult to come up with a perfect definition of remote
participation on which we could all agree, coming up with a
definite that would be at least as good at discriminating
between actual remote participants and contributors and other
sorts of folks as the current 3 of 5 rule is at discriminating
between those who understand the IETF culture and those who
don't.

--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 13:50 -0400 Scott Brim
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom
> participation greatly increases the probability that our
> culture will fracture, and our mission statement lose meaning,
> before we have a chance to agree on what they should become.
> I supported the proposal to require a few old-timers on every
> NomCom a few years ago.  I'm quite against the idea of
> lowering requirements now.  I would only entrust the future of
> the IETF to those who have enough experience and hard-earned
> wisdom to make the difficult decisions that are required.
> Those who participate in the process but are not really deep
> in the culture are already well-represented through the
> vehicles for contributing to the NomCom process.

Well, I agree with all of that in principle.  In practice, I
don't think the combination of a heavy Nomcom workload and long
period of commitment with the 3 of 5 rule has served us very
well in recent years, especially in terms of guaranteeing that
the criteria you think are important are met.   I think we would
be better off with requirements that made it more feasible for
people like you to volunteer to serve on the Nomcom on the basis
of long-term understanding of the culture, a history of
participating in a diverse collection of WGs, a few less f2f
meetings, and some remote participation.  Instead, the 3 of 5
rule and those other factors have brought us Nomcoms with a
large fraction of the volunteer pool being folks with far less
experience and perspective and a need to rely almost completely
on questionnaires and interviews rather than knowledge.  I don't
think those relative newcomers should be excluded either, but
I'm concerned when they appear to be dominating the volunteer
pool because they are the ones with company support, time on
their hands, and no expectations about getting selected for the
IESG, IAN, or IAOC if they don't volunteer for the Nomcom.

It is certainly possible that considering and making some
changes could make things worse.  But they could also make
things better.  And, IMO, merely having a serious conversation
about what we would like our criteria to be and what we are
trying to optimize is useful.   If nothing else, some relative
newcomers might learn something useful about the culture from
the conversation and how we carry it out.

  best,
   john

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:14:09 -0700

> Could you please read the draft and comment?

FWIW, all opinions my own, etc. :)

I have attended several meetings in person, and several remotely. 
Unfortunately I do not support the concept of allowing remote attendance 
to qualify a person for Nomcom.

As others have pointed out, the acculturation that happens during in 
person attendance is a significant part of this issue. Included in that 
is the chance to have at least some exposure to potential candidates as 
people outside of what is seen in e-mail and on line during meetings. 
Those who participate remotely don't have that opportunity, and IMO the 
Nomcom would be the poorer because of that.

I am definitely sympathetic to the argument that meeting attendance 
places a high burden on the participants, and being able to attend 
enough meetings to become Nomcom eligible is a substantial investment. 
However I don't see a practical way to change that without a significant 
changes in IETF structure. (Arguably such changes may be desirable, but 
it would have to come wholesale, not piecemeal.)

Doug

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:54:14 -0700

Hi John,
>see if we can work out the details to make it work.  If we

The definition of "attend" is and has been people who pay the 
attendance fee for the three out of the last five meetings.

I'll quote a part of Paul Hoffman's message:

   "-1. Those choosing the leadership of an organization should
    understand more than the leadership of the one WG they have
    participated in."

Currently, the people choosing IAB and IESG members do not even have 
to understand as much as the leadership of the working group they 
have participated in.  I'll quote an extract from Scott Brim's message:

   "I would only entrust the future of the IETF to those who have enough
    experience and hard-earned wisdom to make the difficult decisions that
    are required.  Those who participate in the process but are not really
    deep in the culture are already well-represented through the vehicles
    for contributing to the NomCom process."

And part of a reply from Michael Richardson:

   "The people involved will be older, work for bigger companies, and have a
    tendancy to be white, north american, male, and not have small
    children (or rather, not have made the choice to stay home with child).

    Since people tend to pick people who look like them, that means that nomcom
    will pick people who are less diverse."

I'll go back to what is said to be oral tradition:

   "The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the demographics
    of its members (e.g., national distribution, years of experience, gender,
    etc.), the combined skill set of its members, and the combined sectors
    (e.g., industry, academia, etc.) represented by its members."

In my opinion the IETF has solved the problem on paper.  If I take, 
for example, gender, there is only one woman on the IAB.  Had the IAB 
been able to address the gender problem over the last 10 years?  I 
would say no (I am using "no" as it is easier for people for which 
English is not their native language to easily understand my response).

Is there balance in the national distribution of IAB members?  I 
would say no (see above for explanation of the "no").   Is there 
balance in industry and academia affiliations?  I would say no.

Those issues have been discussed during the diversity debate and even 
before that.  I am reluctant to make a suggestion that makes the IETF 
an oligarchy.  I took at quick look at this thread.  Most of the 
participants are from North America.  There are two women who have 
commented.  If Adrian Farrel asks me why we do not see participation 
from South America and Africa, my answer is:

  If you entrust the future of the IETF to those who have enough experience and
  hard-earned wisdom the end result is that the rest of the world 
will not believe
  that it is worthwhile to participate unless they have money to gain from that
  participation.

I'll quote an extract from Michael StJohns:

   "Sadly - I think this attitude has become less and less prevalent,
    both in the newer companies that have sent people and in the newer
    people.  Part of this appears to be a belief that the IETF is exactly
    like all the other standards bodies and can be managed/manipulated by
    throwing people at it."

The fact is that there has been NomCom lobbying.  That fact was 
reported a few years ago.  Is there a link between that and what 
Michael StJohns said?  I don't know.

The "open list" approach was adopted a few years back.  Two NomComs 
had different interpretations of the RFC.  I don't think that it 
matters much.  The point here is that definitions are subject to 
interpretation.  For example, there was a previous NomCom discussion 
about the affiliation of an IETF participant.

This is a side note, I'll use Ted Lemon as an example.  I see that he 
is affiliated with nominum.com.  It is easy for anyone to determine 
that.  I'll compare him with Olafur Gudmundsson.  I see that he is 
ogud.com.  Let's say that they are both chairs of a DNS-related 
working group.  Would the average working group participant be 
comfortable to ask about affiliation if he or she is not happy with a 
decision these working group chairs have taken?  Would NomCom members 
be aware of a questionable decision they have taken and how they 
handled the situation?   Would people who do not have the opportunity 
to be physically present at a meeting be comfortable providing 
negative feedback about them if the person does not personally know 
one of the NomCom members?

The IETF had to wait until Olafur stepped forward with a Recall 
petition before doing anything about an ex-IETF Trust Chair who 
likely understood IETF culture.

I agree that it would be good to figure out what is really needed and 
desired and then work out the details.

Yes.

>between those who understand the IETF culture and those who

In my opinion the easier path is to focus on contributors.  The IETF 
culture angle is  controversial because it is like saying that the 
person has to adopt North America culture.

>meetings, and some remote participation.  Instead, the 3 of 5

The above does not require any process changes.

Yes.

>the conversation and how we carry it out.

A side-effect of the discussion could be about enabling new people to 
learn something useful.  If the only way to learn something useful 
about the culture is to have a meeting near your home or to have 
extensive travel resources to get to a meeting the IETF is 
restricting itself to people who work for large vendors.  I leave it 
to the reader to determine whether it leads to large corporate 
control of IETF standards.

I'll quote an extract of a message from the IETF Chair (presently IAB 
Chair) and IAOC Chair:

   "The IETF has always used the Internet to do its work, and remote
    participation is no exception."

Is that correct or is the definition of the IETF everything except 
the IAB, IESG, IAOC, IETF Trust and NomCom?

The IETF mentioned that:

   "Currently, the IETF meets in North America, Europe, and Asia. The intention
    is to meet once a year in each region, although due to scheduling issues
    there are often more meetings in North America and fewer in Asia 
and Europe."

The intention is commendable.  In my opinion it is what happens in 
practice that matters.  I'll quote Olaf (I forgot the actual words): 
the IAB publishes its minutes so that anybody who cares can see what 
the IAB is doing.  If there is a scheduling issue people might 
understand it.  If there are two or three of four scheduling issues 
some people might still be understand it.  If there are systematic 
scheduling issues people will no longer believe what Olaf is saying.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:32:52 -0400

[I have significantly cut down the thread to respond to a couple points.]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:54 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> culture angle is  controversial because it is like saying that the person
> has to adopt North America culture.

The IETF is the protector of what I'd describe as a "public good".  When I
talk about IETF culture, part of what I mean is having people understand
this and have the desire to protect, preserve, and grow it - rather than
loot it for their (or their company's) profit.  It might be viewed as
helping the "pie get larger" instead of thinking of it as zero-sum game.
 Knowing what is important to preserve and protect is also important, but
can be learned.

Alia

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:50:17 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 12:16 27-06-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I support the draft, it will give all participants from all the 
>world equal opputunity. I made input related to this on the list 
>because I found that I am remote participant and there was limits 
>and conditions which I don't want. However, there may be some 
>reasons that IETF done it that way which the draft may need to 
>clarify and solve,

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.

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

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

  - 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?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:52:43 +0100

On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 12:44 +0100, Arturo Servin (probably did not

>     What is the rationale of the requirement to attend psychically to

I attend all meetings psychically.... so spriritual!

Sorry.. couldn't resist.
E.