Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-01

Abstract

This document 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 updates RFC8713.

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 September 19, 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 (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. Goals
• 3. Criteria
• 4. Possible Future Work
• 5. IANA Considerations
• 6. Security Considerations
• 7. Acknowledgements
• 8. Normative References
• 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 additional criteria to qualify volunteers in future.

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 4.

2. Goals

The goals of the new 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).
• Do this quickly in view of the risk of IETF 108 being cancelled too, but ensure that the result is flexible for the future.
• 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.

3. 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 previously, 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: Has submitted at least 6 reviews as a member of an official IETF review team within the last 3 years.
• 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.
• Open question: should we also consider authorship of drafts formally adopted by a WG? BOFs?
• Another open question: do we need to 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?

Certain criteria were rejected as not truly indicating effective IETF participation, or not being objectively and mechanically measurable. These included authorship of individual Internet-Drafts, prolific email, and the simple fact of remote meeting attendance; not to mention any qualitative evaluation of an individual's contributions.

4. Possible Future Work

• Combined paths (e.g., a person who partly satisfies Path 3 and Path 5).
• Considering "time decay" so that recent participation is more highly valued.
• Separating the NomCom volunteer criteria from the recall petitioner criteria.

5. IANA Considerations

This document makes no request of IANA.

6. Security Considerations

This document should not affect the security of the Internet.

7. Acknowledgements

TBD

8. Normative References

Authors' Addresses