Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Seeking reviews for draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 09:12:16 -0400

Bron Gondwana <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I'm less interested in the discussion of the wider scope and long term
    > plans, not because they aren't important but because based on the
    > discussion so far, they aren't solvable quickly -- and we need a
    > process in place well in advance of next year so we aren't scrambling
    > as much as we did this time around.

Hi, thank you for taking on being document shepherd.
I agree with your accessment that we need the process in place.

I think that the document needs to make the path forward clear: if there are
things that we are considering beyond the immediate changes, then I would
like to have some clear signal to the community.

"Tell me how you'll measure me, and I'll tell you how I'll behave"
 -- I was told that W. Edwards Demming said this, but never did manage
    to track down if it was a true quote.
But, it's a good one.

I would propose that we sort things into three lists.
I don't know if this document needs to contain all of it, or if we want to
form another document, or what exactly.

1) These are the things we plan to implement for 2021.

2) These are the things that we are considering for the future.
   There are either unresolved (but solvable) issues with them and/or
   We didn't want to change too much at once.

3) These are the things that we considered, but which we determined
   we would not or could not do.
   ("Would not" <= we have the data, but it's a bad idea.
    "Could not" <= we either do not have the data yet, and/or collecting it would be bad)

I think that some "would not" bits of (3) could be included in an appendix in
the document as "Bad ideas".
I suggest that another document be written for (2), that it receive an
IETF-wide Consensus Call, but not itself get published.
At a later date, that would be the pallete of things to consider.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 09:25:32 -0500

Just adding to what Michael said ...

> I agree with your accessment that we need the process in place.

I echo Michael's thanks and your assessment.

> form another document, or what exactly.

Last Call on this document would be much easier if it only contains the
current experiment.

Collecting "what we've also discussed" into another document, so that
people don't have to chase fairly obscure email threads (which are rarely
short, when Nomcom topics are discussed), would be valuable.

That would also be useful if this experiment is successful, because the
current experiment could easily be published as a BCP without including
lots of background for things that don't need to be in a BCP.

>    We didn't want to change too much at once.

I'd offer a slightly different framing for 2 and for 3:

   - "We think we could get IETF Consensus for this change in the future
   based on discussion to date, but it's not part of the current experiment"
   - "We don't think we could get IETF Consensus for this change in the
   future based on discussion to date"

ISTM that if we'd tried to get IETF Consensus for eligibility of remote
attendees at any point, pre-CoViD-19, we would have concluded that it was a
"bad idea", for reasons that have already been raised about gaming and sock
puppets, but things really did change ("literally no one has attended the
last three IETF meetings in person, so literally no one will be eligible to
serve on Nomcom"). A previously "bad idea" may be the best idea we can come
up with, in a given situation.

Best,

Spencer

) These are the things that we considered, but which we determined
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 16:30:26 +0000

I am in favor of removing the open question (longer-term) from this document.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 13:01:07 -0400

> short, when Nomcom topics are discussed), would be valuable.

Agreed.

    > I'd offer a slightly different framing for 2 and for 3:

    2> - "We think we could get IETF Consensus for this change in the future
    2> based on discussion to date, but it's not part of the current
    2> experiment"

    3> - "We don't think we could get IETF Consensus for this change in the
    3> future based on discussion to date"

Your wording is better.

The reason I think that we need to tell people about <2> is that I think
it is reasonable to say what might get "measured", so they can adopt earlier.

    > up with, in a given situation.

+1

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:04:45 +1200

> I am in favor of removing the open question (longer-term) from this document.

I'm confused. The open question in section 4.1 is specific and concerns the
exact meaning of Path 1 to be applied in 2021 and possibly 2022. We can't
move forward without resolving it.

If you mean: remove section 6 "Possible Future Work", I have no problem with that.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:42:00 +1200

> like to have some clear signal to the community.

I don't think we do have such ideas. That's really why this is proposed
as an experiment: signalling that we need more thinking when we have a
bit of experience.

> 1) These are the things we plan to implement for 2021.

Right, with a possible repeat in 2022.

>    We didn't want to change too much at once.

A separate document for that, presumably with a longer timescale, makes
sense to me.
 
>     "Could not" <= we either do not have the data yet, and/or collecting it would be bad)

Right, isn't that "5. Omitted Criteria", which is intended to be factual
and for the record? I'm not sure there's enough substance for an appendix.

   Brian

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 22:23:31 +0000

>    If you mean: remove section 6 "Possible Future Work", I have no problem with that.

Yes, thanks, that's what I meant.