Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:43:19 +1200

Hi,

We've updated our draft, with the criteria reworked according to the discussion so far, and a completely new set of Venn diagrams that model how those criteria would work out. Many thanks to Robert Sparks for his work on the data.

See below, but the best URL is:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04.html

   Brian & Stephen

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04.txt
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:31:34 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

        Title           : Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
        Authors         : Brian E. Carpenter
                          Stephen Farrell
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2020-08-27

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 reduction in
   face-to-face meetings.  This document temporarily varies the rules in
   RFC 8713.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-04

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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:06:31 -0400

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > We've updated our draft, with the criteria reworked according to the
    > discussion so far, and a completely new set of Venn diagrams that model
    > how those criteria would work out. Many thanks to Robert Sparks for his
    > work on the data.

Thank you.

The second set are interesting.
It mostly confirms that the "IAB/IESG" path is probably useless.

While there are some people who were not eliminated, all of them were
eligible by other paths, and the two who were not eligible by other paths
were eliminated.

Given that the IESG/IAB path (3) feels (in particular, to outsiders) the most
like a capture of the process by the executive, I would suggest that we
remove it.

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

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:19:21 +0000

I agree with the reasoning for this.

But if the WG consensus goes the other way, I can live with it.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:42:49 +1200

I agree. 

Regards
   Brian