Network Working Group B.E. Carpenter Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland Intended status: Experimental S. Farrell Expires: 29 September 2020 Trinity College Dublin 28 March 2020 Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility 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. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 September 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Term of the Experiment 3. Goals 4. Criteria 5. Open Questions 6. Possible Future Work 7. IANA Considerations 8. Security Considerations 9. Acknowledgements 10. Normative References Appendix A. Change Log A.1. Draft-01 to -02 A.2. Draft-00 to -01 Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee is populated from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of attendance at IETF plenary face-to-face meetings. In view of the unexpected cancellation of the IETF 107 meeting, the risk of future cancellations, the probability of less frequent meetings in future in support of sustainability, and a general increase in remote participation, this document defines a process experiment [RFC3933] of fixed duration to use additional criteria to qualify volunteers. Also according to [RFC8713], the qualification for signing a community petition for the recall of certain IETF office-holders is that same as for the Nominating Committee. This document does not change that, but see Section 6. The source for this is at https://github.com/sftcd/elig/ and PRs are welcome there. Discussion on the eligibility-discuss@ietf.org list is also welcome. 2. Term of the Experiment The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting, and the risk of IETF 108 also being cancelled, mean that the current criteria are in any case seriously perturbed for the next two years. The experiment therefore needs to start as soon as possible. However, the experiment does not apply to the selection of the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee. The experiment will cover the two IETF Nominating Committee cycles starting in 2021 and 2022. As soon as the 2022-2023 Nominating Committee is seated, the IESG must consult the Nominating Committee chairs involved and publish a report on the results of the experiment. The IESG must then also begin a community discussion of whether to amend [RFC8713] in time for the 2023 Nominating Committee cycle. 3. Goals The goals of the additional criteria are as follows: * Mitigate the issue of active remote (or rarely in-person) participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall processes. * Prepare for an era in which face-to-face plenary meetings are less frequent (thus extending the issue to many, perhaps a majority, of participants). * Ensure that those eligible are true "participants" with enough current understanding of IETF practice and people to make informed decisions. * The criteria must be algorithmic so that the Secretariat can check them mechanically. 4. Criteria There will be several alternative paths to qualification, replacing the single criterion in section 4.14 of [RFC8713]. Any one of the paths is sufficient, unless the person is otherwise disqualified under section 4.15 of [RFC8713]: * Path 1: As per [RFC8713], the person has attended 3 out of the last 5 in-person IETF meetings. * Path 2: Has been a WG Chair or Secretary within the last 3 years. * Path 3: (Feedback on path 3 from draft-01 was uniformly negative so ignore this, we'll leave placeholder text here for now just to avoid renumbering.) * Path 4: Has served in the IESG or IAB, or has been appointed to a formal role by the IESG or IAB, within the last 5 years. * Path 5: Has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs within the last 5 years. A draft that has been approved by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor queue counts. 5. Open Questions * Should we also consider authorship of drafts formally adopted by a WG? * Should BOF chairs qualify for Path 2? * Should we consider remote meeting attendance and if so how do we measure it? Is there any difference from this point of view between plenary and interim meetings? * Should we consider how many nomcom voting members qualify via which paths? For example, would it be ok if all 10 nomcom voting members qualified via path 4 in one year? * We have not yet done an analysis of the effects of the criteria described here based on information from the public record and IETF datatracker. That should be done before this process experiment starts. Certain criteria were rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF participation. These included authorship of individual Internet- Drafts, sending email to IETF lists, reviewing drafts, etc. Since the criteria must be objectively and mechanically measurable, no qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions is considered. 6. Possible Future Work * Combined paths (e.g., a person who partly satisfies Path 2 and Path 5); otherwise known as a "points system". That seems to involve work/complexity either for the secretariat or for the volunteer. * Tweaking the "time decay" in each of the path definitions that ensures recent participation is more highly valued. * Separating the NomCom volunteer criteria from the recall petitioner criteria. 7. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. 8. Security Considerations This document should not affect the security of the Internet. 9. Acknowledgements Useful comments were received from John Klensin, Warren Kumari, Michael Richardson, Martin Thomson, (to be completed) 10. Normative References [RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933, November 2004, . [RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood, Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713, DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020, . Appendix A. Change Log A.1. Draft-01 to -02 * Made this an RFC 3933 process experiment * Eliminated path based on directorate reviews, used to be: "Has submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of an official IETF review team within the last 3 years." * Other comments from IETF107 virtual gendispatch meeting handled A.2. Draft-00 to -01 * Added author Authors' Addresses Brian E. Carpenter The University of Auckland School of Computer Science, PB 92019 Auckland 1142 New Zealand Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Stephen Farrell Trinity College Dublin College Green Dublin Ireland Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie