One final message from me on this topic, then I'm done ...
Date:Mon, 17 May 2010 08:10:01 +0200
From:Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com
Message-ID: 4bf0ddb9.60...@cisco.com
| but I do accept that they have the authority to make such a statement,
| if rough consensus
At 12:48 14-05-10, The IESG wrote:
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
Is the IESG referring to the One-day Guest Pass
Rob,
ps: all the questions as to what qualifications are required of a noomcom
volunteer, how big the pool should be, ... are all fine topics to discuss -
in a WG created to discuss those issues - none are relevant now - that you'd
even consider making an argument on those lines means that
I got some data from the Secretariat that I hope provides better insight
to the questions that were asked:
1) If day passes do not count as attendance, how many NomCom
eligible people do we have?
718
2) If day passes count as attendance, how many NomCom eligible
people do we have?
736
On May 14, 2010, at 12:48 PM, The IESG wrote:
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
this statement, and the IESG actively
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/15/10 08:15, Russ Housley wrote:
I got some data from the Secretariat that I hope provides better insight
to the questions that were asked:
...
The remaining 18 people have attended only three of the five meetings
with one or more on a Day
Russ,
Thank you/the secretariat for chasing this level of detail down. I suspected
the numbers would look something like this, and didn't want to ask for it,
but it's much appreciated that you guys did check.
With the addition of this information to the previous debate I am
supportive of
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
statement. Please send
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:33PM -0400, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment.
I do not object to this statement, and I support the IESG making some
statement on the matter so that the eligibility rules are clear.
Best regards,
A
--
- Original Message
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
CC: The IESG i...@ietf.org
Would it be possible to get a number from the secretariat of those who
My $.02 worth.
1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a day
pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview of the IESG
(or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide.
2) The IESG/IAOC can choose whether or not to offer such a day pass as that is
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Michael StJohns wrote:
My $.02 worth.
1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a
day pass as attending is reasonable and timely and within the purview
of the IESG (or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide.
2) The IESG/IAOC can
) takes a final
decision
on this topic.
Hiroshima: 121
Anaheim: 135
Ray
IAD
Thanks,
Doug
- Original Message
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
To: IETF ietf
a final decision
on this topic.
Thanks,
Doug
Original Message
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:59:08 -0700
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
CC: The IESG i...@ietf.org
Would
On 5/14/2010 3:23 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Day Pass History:
Hiroshima: 121
Anaheim: 135
Thanks Russ (and Ray). However it's not clear to me if those numbers
represent the total number of day pass participants (which they seem to)
or if those numbers are an answer to the question I posed
Doug,
I had also wished for numbers that more clearly translated into impact on
who was NomCom eligible (as you requested), but decided not to, simply
because I wasn't convinced this would matter enough on who was selected to
serve on NomCom, to justifiy spending secretariat time gathering
This is an update to the Last Call that is currently in progress.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
this statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
statement. Please send
While it is certainly true that we can craft arguments for either
interpretation, I don't personally find the arguments for the narrow
interpretation all that compelling. If we have to err, let's err on the
side of inclusiveness. We can craft rules that narrow things in
the future, but we
Although I disagree with Don's position overall because I do believe
we need to be more inclusive as a matter of principle, I may agree with
him on this one point, because for the MANY years or so that I was
eligible for the NOMCOM, the random process never chose me. And chose a
bunch of
On 5/11/10 4:02 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Although I disagree with Don's position overall because I do believe we
need to be more inclusive as a matter of principle, I may agree with him
on this one point, because for the MANY years or so that I was eligible
for the NOMCOM, the random process
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 21:29:30 -0400
From:Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com
Message-ID: aanlktikr_ekunqtsglxsvleeda8ndd8nxu6ofmpiw...@mail.gmail.com
| It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit
| lower than what I think. But to change it,
I have attended exactly 70 out of 77 IETF meetings. Assuming the
perfect coefficient to be 1 (77/77) mine is 70 / 77 = 0.909090909
(is that really recurring ???) And having mostly been good about
volunteering, the system has picked me twice in 24 years, keeping
in mind that we did not have
Just one point on this issue.
Please do not write a policy that says 'part attendance method X does
not qualify'. Instead write one that says that a full on-site
attendance pass is required to qualify.
Otherwise we risk having to keep on carving out one-off exceptions and
may end up with the
I disagree with this policy action.
Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be
eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14
(attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program) but not under the modified
version. And then, we have not factored in that
--On Friday, May 07, 2010 09:29 -0700 Dave CROCKER
dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
There is a rather fundamental constitutional difference
between having the IESG assess community rough consensus,
versus having the IESG ask for input and then make the
decision based on IESG preferences. In the
IAOC Hat Off
IMHO, the issue is not that one does not get the flavor of the IETF by only
attending for a day. I would offer it is that prospective nomcom members would
miss out on the experiences of (1) formal community feedback from scheduled
meetings during the IETF meetings and (2)
On May 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
would count for the Nomcom qualification or not. But nothing
prevented a person in that position from asking the
; IESG
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I disagree with this policy action.
Looking at the data, there are very few, if any, people who would be
eligible as nomcom members under the current version of rule 14
(attended 3 out of 5 IETF's on any program
On 5/10/2010 8:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but
a change to the BCP. Applying such changes retroactively stinks.
Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day Passes,
in terms of other IETF
Robert:
I'd like to share my thoughts about your comments. First, I want to say
that I mostly agree with you. However, your suggestion is not
practical. If there was a WG that could weigh in on this topic, then
that would have been done, but there is not an existing WG with the
charter to
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
...
Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not
consider the NOMCOM ramifications. If I had, I think it would likely that I
would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.
On May 10, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The nature of that price -- besides the pain of this discussion -- is going
to be retroactive enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of some attendees.
Either way, that's pretty egregious. But since Day Passes have been handled
pretty
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day Passes,
in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom, was entirely
missed by the community -- that is, by all of us. We are now paying the price
for that.
But
At 23:51 -0500 5/6/10, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear IESG,
I'm conflicted on this one.
That's a statement I can agree with. Superficially, it seems to make
sense that 20% (1 day of 5) doesn't count. But...
As others have said - paying full fare and attending one day vs.
buying a day pass
On Thu, 6 May 2010, The IESG wrote:
The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
qualities that would make an effective IETF leader.
Opposed. (Disclosures: I've not used a day pass. I have
On 5/10/2010 9:43 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Personally, I think the right answer might be some kind of attendance
coefficient based not just on last N meetings attended but on
overall attendance record (and by implication knowledge of the IETF).
This is a very nice example of taking the
This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as
reasonable folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect
conclusions) for someone using the day pass program to assume that said
attendance would count.
While some people have asserted that they find it obvious that it should
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
This note assumes that it was correct (not merely reasonable, as reasonable
folks can differ, and sometimes come to incorrect conclusions) for someone
using the day pass program to assume that said attendance would
I fairly strongly support the IESG's proposed policy statement on the
day pass experiment. I specifically belive that it is counter to our
ability to fund our ongoing activities to turn the day pass experiment
into a way to reduce the cost of attending IETF on an ongoing basis. We
want to do
On 5/10/2010 10:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
While it is certainly true that we can craft arguments for either
interpretation, I don't personally find the arguments for the narrow
interpretation all that compelling. If we have to err, let's err on the
side of inclusiveness.
Given that the
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
concern for their level of interest. As far
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?
Because from my own experience, I've
On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the bar helps produce better leadership selection?
At 10:12 AM 5/7/2010, John C Klensin wrote:
To the extent to which we want to open this can of worms (or are
forced into it by necessity), there is a second fundamental
'constitutional' difference here. As I read BCP 101, it is
pretty clear that the IAOC (or IASA generally) are forbidden to
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/10/2010 11:08 AM, David Morris wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Given that the argument for /ex/clusiveness pertains to competence at
rendering judgment about IETF leadership candidates, can you explain why
lowering the
Henk,
I do agree, of course, about the likelihood of this rule matching anyone
who actually does volunteer for Nomcom.
I do think that we should clarify the policy regardless of the small
likelihood. Think of it as insurance against an unlikely event but with
bad consequences (possibly long
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand attend to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.
I've already said too much in this thread, but
On 05/10/10 08:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Yes, it does stink. As nearly as I can tell, the import of having Day
Passes, in terms of other IETF participation such as being on Nomcom,
was entirely missed by the community -- that is, by all of us. We are
now paying the price for that.
One could
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand attend to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who
Robert:
| That is the process that made RFC 3777 a BCP. With the IAOC conducting
the
| Day Pass experiment, an interpretation of the rule in RFC 3777 regarding
| NomCom eligibility is needed.
Why?
From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
expected the
On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand attend to include remote attendance
Would it be possible to get a number from the secretariat of those who
have paid full freight for 2 of the last 5 meetings, plus used a day
pass for one or more of the other 3?
I have already asserted that the attention devoted to this so far has
exceeded that which is reasonable based on the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
todd == todd glassey tglas...@earthlink.net writes:
todd Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video
todd conference including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both
todd are reasonable methods of attending these days.
I also
Russ Housley wrote:
From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
IETF meeting, and that others had the opposite expectation. Both views
have been expressed on this thread. Thus, an
Date:Mon, 10 May 2010 16:25:12 -0400
From:Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Message-ID: 4be86ba8.2060...@vigilsec.com
| From the discussion at the plenary, it was clear to me that some people
| expected the purchase of a day pass to count as participating in that
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I fairly strongly support the IESG's proposed policy statement on the
day pass experiment. I
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and
At 04:57 AM 5/7/2010, Robert Elz wrote:
I have two (different types of) comments to make.First, and most
important by far, is WTF ??? I understand the need for IESG Statements
from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be making such
statements about is the process by which
Inline
- Original Message -
From: Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Cc: i...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
Date:Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400
From:The IESG i
The IESG observes that attending a single day of the IETF meeting is not
sufficient for a new participant to learn the culture of the IETF or the
qualities that would make an effective IETF leader. Further, ongoing
exposure to the IETF standards process is necessary to appreciate the
On 5/8/2010 3:21 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
But be fair: they are doing an IETF Last Call BEFORE they decide on the
statement.
Is that not how you try to determine consensus within the whole IETF?
That's a necessary, but not a sufficient, action.
One can solicit community comment, as a
I think the policy recommended by the IESG is the right thing.
Since IETF WGs operate via their mailing lists, IETF meeting are for
cross area / cross WG interaction, which only works for people there a
significant part of the week. This is the reason why the IETF has
traditionally refused to
Date:Thu, 06 May 2010 18:07:40 -0400
From:The IESG i...@ietf.org
Message-ID: 4be33dac.80...@ietf.org
| The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
| Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
| a policy statement,
On 5/6/2010 9:51 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings
does not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very
experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone
doing a day pass during a trough in
On 5/7/2010 4:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
I understand the need for IESG Statements
from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be making such
statements about is the process by which the IESG (and more of course) is
selected - if there was anything about which there's an obvious
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:27:48AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
assessment of public rough consensus. But the actual decision /must/ be
IETF-wide and it must be published as an addendum RFC asserting IETF-wide
consensus.
Even for this experiment (the evaluation conditions for which have
Spencer: I suggested the
one-of--your-three-meetings-can-be-with-a-day-pass option during IESG
discussion. My thought was that day job demands and other reasons might
make someone prefer to take an occasional day pass instead of a full
meeting, and I'd rather err on the side of allowing more
Having served on Nomcom before as well have participated in the Day Pass
Experiment, I find myself disagreeing with this policy statement.
The statement seems to assumes that the day-pass holder minimally use their
pass and a week-pass holder maximumly uses their pass. The statement
--On Friday, May 07, 2010 07:27 -0700 Dave CROCKER
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/7/2010 4:57 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
I understand the need for IESG Statements
from time to time, but the very worst thing to possibly to be
making such statements about is the process by which the IESG
(and
I support this change.
Cullen
PS - and when I read the ietf@ietf.org mailing list, I am often convinced I
don't understand the culture of the IETF so I am glad to note the IESG only
talks about what is clearly not sufficient and makes no implications about what
might be sufficient to
Spencer,
I think the right way to fix this problem is to allow anyone who self declares
themselves as currently unemployed get a significantly reduced rate for a 5 day
pass (perhaps the same rate as 1 day pass). I know this could be abused by
people who are self employed consultants but
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I think that, as a temporary measure to deal with the current
experiment, the IESG taking a decision is acceptable. Excluding
day-pass-only people is completely defensible because the rules were
written in a period when day passes didn't exist.
As I recall, the basis of the 3/5 rule (and previously the 3/3 rule)
was to avoid ballot stuffing, I do not see substantial risk of allowing
those who have used day passes to be eligible for NOMCOM, especially
considering that in all likelihood nobody is going to do that more than
once. As
On 5/7/2010 8:10 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Dave, Kre: I'm not so convinced that there would be any problem even if
the IESG (or IAOC) decided how to interpret the RFC-specified rules in a
practical situation. However, I don't think we need to argue this
because there is an ongoing Last Call and
Personally I think that at least for the incoming 2010 nomcom having a clear
well defined criteria that can be applied unambiguously is more important than
the precise details of what the criteria is. This proposed rule seems perfectly
reasonable for use this time around.
Ross
On Thu, 6 May
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 08:54:51AM -0700, David Morris wrote:
The RFC has already been cited and it just says attend. A day pass
consitutes attending ... changing the english definition after the fact
is changing the rules after the fact.
I think that argument begs the question. It seems
--On Thursday, May 06, 2010 16:15 -0700 David Morris
d...@xpasc.com wrote:
I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor
criteria for familiarity with IETF culture and more important
familiarity with the participation of the potential nominees
being considered for leadership
Dave,
There is a rather fundamental constitutional difference between
having the IESG assess community rough consensus, versus having the
IESG ask for input and then make the decision based on IESG
preferences. In the first, the formal authority resides with the
community; in the second it
On Fri, 7 May 2010, John C Klensin wrote:
Finally, as Dave Crocker pointed out, complexity in our
operating rules rarely serves us well. Whether the discussion
is about this case or about Nomcom qualifications more
generally, we should not try to do enough hair-splitting to
cover every
On 5/7/2010 8:54 AM, David Morris wrote:
The appropriate statement from the IESG at this time is to simply confirm
that the english word 'attend' encompases day-pass attendance. At the
present time, the maximum corruption, if it is indeed meaningful, is two
day passes and 1 full meeting.
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing
lists by 2010-05-20.
This seems completely reasonable.
john
--On Thursday, May 06, 2010 18:07 -0400 The IESG i...@ietf.org
wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
weeks on a policy statement, and the IESG actively
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
Marshall
john
--On Thursday, May 06, 2010 18:07 -0400 The IESG i...@ietf.org
wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to
I think the number of meetings 'registered' for is a poor criteria
for familiarity with IETF culture and more important familiarity
with the participation of the potential nominees being considered
for leadership roles in the IETF.
In the pre-day pass days, I paid full fare more than once but
On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
On 2010-05-07 11:20, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/6/2010 3:58 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 6, 2010, at 6:45 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
This seems completely reasonable.
And to me too.
+1
+1
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
At 03:07 PM 5/6/2010, The IESG wrote:
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
[snip]
RFC 3777 requires that voting members of
-to-face talk about IETF topics..
Regards,
Xiangsong
- Original Message -
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
To: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Cc: IESG i...@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment
I think the number
SM wrote:
A person can spend a whole week at an IETF meeting without understanding
the culture.
True, but it seems to me that on average that doesn't/
won't happen, and given the size of the nomcom this isn't
likely to be an issue.
I used to participate in every meeting, took a few years
Looks OK to me.
Hope this helps.
~gwz
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:08 AM
To: IETF; IETF Announce
Cc: IESG
Subject: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass
Dear IESG,
I'm conflicted on this one. I agree that three days at IETF meetings does
not a NomCom member make, but I know several people who are very
experienced, but who are self-funding, and I can easily imagine someone
doing a day pass during a trough in their business cycle.
I would be
The IESG is considering the following Statement on the Day Pass
Experiment. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks on
a policy statement, and the IESG actively solicits comments on this
action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing
lists by 2010-05-20.
93 matches
Mail list logo
