diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt | 423 |
1 files changed, 423 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9b4861f --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8989.txt @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter +Request for Comments: 8989 Univ. of Auckland +Category: Experimental S. Farrell +ISSN: 2070-1721 Trinity College Dublin + February 2021 + + + Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility + +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. The experiment is of fixed duration and will + apply to one, or at most two, consecutive Nominating Committee + cycles, starting in 2021. This document temporarily varies the rules + in RFC 8713. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for examination, experimental implementation, and + evaluation. + + This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet + community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering + Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF + community. It has received public review and has been approved for + publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not + all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of + Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8989. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2021 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 + (https://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 and Evaluation of the Experiment + 3. Goals + 4. Criteria + 4.1. Clarifying Detail + 5. Omitted Criteria + 6. IANA Considerations + 7. Security Considerations + 8. Normative References + Appendix A. Available Data + Acknowledgements + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + According to [RFC8713], the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom) is + populated from a pool of volunteers with a specified record of + attendance at IETF plenary meetings, which were assumed to be face- + to-face meetings when that document was approved. In view of the + cancellation of the IETF 107, 108, 109, and 110 face-to-face + meetings; the risk of future cancellations; the probability of less- + frequent face-to-face meetings in the future in support of + sustainability; and a general increase in remote participation, this + document defines a process experiment [RFC3933] of fixed duration + (described in Section 2) to use modified and additional criteria to + qualify volunteers. + + During this experiment, the eligibility criteria for signing recall + petitions -- which [RFC8713] defines to be the same as those for + NomCom eligibility -- are consequently also modified as described in + this document. This experiment has no other effect on the recall + process. + +2. Term and Evaluation of the Experiment + + The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 through 110 meetings means + that the current criteria are in any case seriously perturbed for at + least 2 years. The experiment therefore needs to start as soon as + possible. However, the experiment did not apply to the selection of + the 2020-2021 NomCom, which was performed according to [RFC8788]. + + The experiment will initially cover the IETF NomCom cycle that begins + in 2021. As soon as the entire 2021-2022 NomCom is seated, the IESG + must consult the 2021-2022 NomCom Chair and the 2020-2021 NomCom + Chair (who will maintain NomCom confidentiality) and publish a report + on the results of the experiment. Points to be considered are + whether the experiment has produced a sufficiently large and diverse + pool of individuals, whether enough of those individuals have + volunteered to produce a representative NomCom with good knowledge of + the IETF, and whether all the goals in Section 3 have been met. If + possible, a comparison with results from the previous procedure + (i.e., RFC 8713) should be made. + + The IESG must then also begin a community discussion of whether to: + + 1. Amend [RFC8713] in time for the 2022-2023 NomCom cycle; or + + 2. Prolong the current experiment for a second and final year with + additional clarifications specific to the 2022-2023 cycle; or + + 3. Run a different experiment for the next nominating cycle; or + + 4. Revert to [RFC8713]. + + The IESG will announce the results of the consensus determination of + this discussion in good time for the 2022-2023 NomCom cycle to + commence. + + In the event of prolongation of this experiment for a second year, + the IESG will repeat the consultation, report, and community + discussion process accordingly, but this document lapses at the end + of the 2022-2023 NomCom cycle. + +3. Goals + + The goals of the modified and additional criteria are as follows: + + * Mitigate the issue of active remote (or, rarely, in-person) + participants being disenfranchised in the NomCom and recall + processes. + + * Enable the selection of a 2021-2022 NomCom, and possibly a + 2022-2023 NomCom, when it is impossible for anyone to have + attended 3 out of the last 5 IETF meetings in person. + + * 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 have enough current understanding of + IETF practices and people to make informed decisions. + + * Provide algorithmic criteria, so that the Secretariat can check + them mechanically against available data. + +4. Criteria + + This experiment specifies 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: The person has registered for and attended 3 out of the last + 5 IETF meetings. For meetings held entirely online, online + registration and attendance count as attendance. For the + 2021-2022 NomCom, the meetings concerned will be IETF 106, 107, + 108, 109, and 110. Attendance is as determined by the record + keeping of the Secretariat for in-person meetings and is based on + being a registered person who logged in for at least one session + of an online IETF meeting. + + Path 2: The person has been a Working Group Chair or Secretary + within the 3 years prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers + is sent to the community. + + Path 3: The person has been a listed author or editor (on the front + page) of at least two IETF Stream RFCs within the last 5 years + prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent to the + community. An Internet-Draft that has been approved by the IESG + and is in the RFC Editor queue counts the same as a published RFC, + with the relevant date being the date the draft was added to the + RFC Editor queue. For avoidance of doubt, the 5-year timer + extends back to the date 5 years before the date when the call for + NomCom volunteers is sent to the community. + + Notes: + + * Path 1 corresponds approximately to [RFC8713], modified as per + [RFC8788]. + + * Path 3 includes approved drafts, since some documents spend a long + time in the RFC Editor's queue. + + * Path 3 extends to 5 years because it commonly takes 3 or 4 years + for new documents to be approved in the IETF Stream, so 3 years + would be too short a sampling period. + + * All the required data are available to the IETF Secretariat from + meeting attendance records or the IETF Datatracker. + +4.1. Clarifying Detail + + Path 1 does not qualify people who register and attend face-to-face + meetings remotely. That is, it does not qualify remote attendees at + IETF 106, because that meeting took place prior to any question of + cancelling meetings. + + If the IESG prolongs this experiment for a second year, as allowed by + Section 2, the IESG must also clarify how Path 1 applies to IETF 111, + 112, and 113. + +5. Omitted Criteria + + During community discussions of this document, certain criteria were + rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF participation or as + being unlikely to significantly expand the volunteer pool. These + included authorship of individual or Working-Group-adopted Internet- + Drafts, sending email to IETF lists, reviewing drafts, acting as a + BOF Chair, and acting in an external role for the IETF (liaisons, + etc.). + + One path -- service in the IESG or IAB within the last 5 years -- was + found to have no benefit, since historical data show that such people + always appear to be qualified by another path. + + Since the criteria must be measurable by the Secretariat, no + qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions is + considered. + +6. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +7. Security Considerations + + This document should not affect the security of the Internet. + +8. Normative References + + [RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process + Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, DOI 10.17487/RFC3933, + November 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3933>. + + [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, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>. + + [RFC8788] Leiba, B., "Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating + Committee", BCP 10, RFC 8788, DOI 10.17487/RFC8788, May + 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8788>. + +Appendix A. Available Data + + An analysis of how some of the above criteria would affect the number + of NomCom-qualified participants if applied in August 2020 has been + performed. The results are presented below in Venn diagrams as + Figures 1 through 4. Note that the numbers shown differ slightly + from manual counts due to database mismatches, and the results were + not derived at the normal time of the year for NomCom formation. The + lists of remote attendees for IETF 107 and 108 were used, although + not yet available on the IETF web site. + + A specific difficulty is that the databases involved inevitably + contain a few inconsistencies, such as duplicate entries, differing + versions of a person's name, and impersonal authors. (For example, + "IAB" qualifies under Path 3, and one actual volunteer artificially + appears not to qualify.) This underlines that automatically + generated lists of eligible and qualified people will always require + manual checking. + + The first two diagrams illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) affect + eligibility numbers compared to the meeting participation path (1). + Figure 1 gives the raw numbers, and Figure 2 removes those + disqualified according to RFC 8713. The actual 2020 volunteer pool + is shown too. + + People eligible via Path 1, + 3 of 5 meetings: 842 + +----------------------+ + | | + | 379 | + | +-----------+----------------+ + | | | | People eligible + | | 332 | 1104 | via Path 2 + | | | | or Path 3: + | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1541 + | | | | | | + | | 29 | 102 | | | + | | | | | | + | | | | | | + +---+------+-----------+ | | + | | | | + | | 3 | | + | | | | + | +-------------------+--------+ + | | + | 1 | + | | + +--------------------------+ + 2020 actual volunteers: 135 + + Figure 1: All Paths, before Disqualification + + Qualified via Path 1, + 3 of 5 meetings: 806 + +----------------------+ + | | + | 375 | + | +-----------+----------------+ + | | | | Qualified + | | 300 | 1104 | via Path 2 + | | | | or Path 3: + | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1509 + | | | | | | + | | 29 | 102 | | | + | | | | | | + | | | | | | + +---+------+-----------+ | | + | | | | + | | 3 | | + | | | | + | +-------------------+--------+ + | | + | 1 | + | | + +--------------------------+ + 2020 actual volunteers: 135 + + Figure 2: All Paths, after Disqualification + + Figures 3 and 4 illustrate how the new paths (2 and 3) interact with + each other, also before and after disqualifications. The discarded + path via IESG and IAB service (Section 5) is also shown, as Path "I". + The data clearly show that Path "I" has no practical value. + + People eligible via Path 2 + Total: 253 + +----------------------+ + | | + | 46 | + | +-----------+----------------+ + | | | | People eligible + | | 176 | 1266 | via Path 3 + | | | | Total: + | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1493 + | | | | | | + | | 2 | 29 | | | + | | | | | | + | | | | | | + +---+------+-----------+ | | + | | | | + | | 22 | | + | | | | + | +-------------------+--------+ + | | + | 2 | + | | + +--------------------------+ + People eligible via Path "I": 55 + + Figure 3: New Paths, before Disqualification + + Qualified via Path 2 + Total: 234 + +----------------------+ + | | + | 45 | + | +-----------+----------------+ + | | | | Qualified + | | 172 | 1264 | via Path 3 + | | | | Total: + | +------+-----------+-------+ | 1463 + | | | | | | + | | 1 | 16 | | | + | | | | | | + | | | | | | + +---+------+-----------+ | | + | | | | + | | 11 | | + | | | | + | +-------------------+--------+ + | | + | 0 | + | | + +--------------------------+ + Qualified via Path "I": 28 + + Figure 4: New Paths, after Disqualification + +Acknowledgements + + Useful comments were received from Abdussalam Baryun, Alissa Cooper, + Lars Eggert, Adrian Farrel, Bron Gondwana, Russ Housley, Christian + Huitema, Ben Kaduk, John Klensin, Victor Kuarsingh, Warren Kumari, + Barry Leiba, Eric Rescorla, Michael Richardson, Rich Salz, Ines + Robles, Martin Thomson, and Magnus Westerlund. + + The data analysis was mainly done by Robert Sparks. Carsten Bormann + showed how to represent Venn diagrams in ASCII art. + +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 |