Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02.txt

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 19:22:18 +0000

Hi all,

Brian and I have rev'd this draft based on discussion
so far.

The main change in -02 is to propose this as an RFC3933
process experiment to run for two years. We also dropped
the directorate-review based path as everyone seemed
to dislike that a quite a bit (me included actually;-)

I plan to spend a bit of time figuring out the effect
that this proposal would have based on data from years
gone by, so if people had comments that'd affect that
analysis, it'd be great to get those now.

Thanks,
S.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02.txt
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 12:17:06 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Brian E. Carpenter <[email-masked]>, Brian Carpenter
<[email-masked]>, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Stephen Farrell and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand
Revision:	02
Title:		Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
Document date:	2020-03-28
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		5
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-02

Abstract:
   This document defines a process experiment under RFC 3933 that
   temporarily updates the criteria for qualifying volunteers to
   participate in the IETF Nominating Committee.  It therefore also
   updates the criteria for qualifying signatories to a community recall
   petition.  The purpose is to make the criteria more flexible in view
   of increasing remote participation in the IETF and a probable decline
   in face-to-face meetings.  This document temporarily varies the rules
   in RFC 8713.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 14:32:41 -0400

> analysis, it'd be great to get those now.

Some of the data (including in particular, directorate-review) is in the DT,
and one can connect to the sandbox instance to do stuff.

But, I don't think our original data (attendance at meetings) is available in
the DT, as the registration system is still not connected. (I believe it is
in progress).

Robert: I wonder if we could get this data (perhaps under NDA).
We only need data from IETF 102 onwards, I guess, but it might be interested
to go backwards in time and ask how the eligibility issues would have
affected people in the past, since we can't predict the future.

Stephen, I think this is approx. 1 day of DT hacking.
I would be happy to participate, but I can't lead that.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 13:52:24 -0500

Reigstration _is_ in the datatracker from earlier than 102, but you 
won't really be able to pull it out of the sandbox easily (perhaps if 
you use the API). You would probably be happier pulling down the latest 
docker image and working in that.

I am planning to build the basics of a page that will show eligibility 
under whatever algorithms we want to throw at it.

but, fwiw (and note that I've attended without missing any until 100 
since IETF 46):

In [13]: for m in 
Meeting.objects.filter(meetingregistration__email=[email-masked]').distinct().order_by('pk'):
     ...:     print (m)

IETF-74
IETF-75
IETF-77
IETF-78
IETF-79
IETF-80
IETF-81
IETF-82
IETF-83
IETF-84
IETF-85
IETF-86
IETF-87
IETF-88
IETF-89
IETF-90
IETF-91
IETF-92
IETF-93
IETF-94
IETF-95
IETF-96
IETF-97
IETF-98
IETF-99
IETF-102
IETF-104
IETF-105

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:02:30 -0400

Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > Reigstration _is_ in the datatracker from earlier than 102, but you won't
    > really be able to pull it out of the sandbox easily (perhaps if you use the
    > API). You would probably be happier pulling down the latest docker image and
    > working in that.

I meant, check the code out, then do a database connect over the network,
and run a query like you show below.

    > I am planning to build the basics of a page that will show eligibility under
    > whatever algorithms we want to throw at it.

    > but, fwiw (and note that I've attended without missing any until 100 since
    > IETF 46):

    > Meeting.objects.filter(meetingregistration__email=[email-masked]').distinct().order_by('pk'):

ah, I didn't realize the data was there already.
That is awesome.  Is there a nomcom-eligible function somewhere already?

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 16:19:11 -0500

> That is awesome.  Is there a nomcom-eligible function somewhere already?

Yes, there has been for some time. I've been trying at each meeting to 
reconcile it against the list the secretariat produces to work out edge 
cases. I know there are some that aren't filtered out, and the current 
filters have aged (they check to see if you're in the IAOC for example).

If you log into the datatracker and look at your "Account Info" page 
(/accounts/profile), there is a "Nomcom Eligible" entry. It answers "are 
you eligible for NomCom if it was chosen today, using the rules we have 
to date.

You can skim the code at 
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/trunk/ietf/meeting/utils.py#L177>.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:43:47 +1300

Robert,

That's great. I'm all for testing any criteria we might adopt to see their effect.

By the way, today, what does the tracker algorithm do about IETF 107?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:04:52 -0500

> By the way, today, what does the tracker algorithm do about IETF 107?

At the moment, there are no entries in the datatracker reflecting 
registration/attendance for IETF 107, but the meeting object exists so 
that we could have the virtual sessions.  So the current code would 
treat it as if a meeting happened for the last 3 of 5 purposes, but 
nobody attended.

To reinforce a point - this is something in development, it has been 
checked against what the secretariat produces for a few meetings, but 
the secretariats processes have been what we have used to verify 
eligibility of volunteers to date.

RjS