Minutes IETF107: gendispatch
minutes-107-gendispatch-00

Gendispatch @ IETF107
Wednesday, March 25 2020, 21:40-22:40 UTC
Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Pete Resnick

Recordings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIeu6T0S9BQ
Jabber room logs: https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/gendispatch/2020-03-25.html

Minute takers:
    * Rich Salz

Jabber scribe:
    * Bron Gondwana

**********************************************************************
          Agenda & Minutes
**********************************************************************

* Introduction
(Chairs)

* Definition of new tags for relations between RFCs
(Mirja Kuehlewind)
        * draft: [Definition of new tags for relations between
        RFCs](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/ ) *
        discussion:

* Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee Eligibility
(Brian Carpenter)
        * draft: [Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee
        Eligibility](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/
        ) * discussion:

* AOB

MINUTES

Agenda Bashing -- nothing

draft-kuehlewind-update-tag, Mirja Kuehlewind
John Kleinsin worries this will make lack of definition worse; Mirja disagrees.
Spencer Dawkins - does it make sense to deprecate Updates in RFC text, and move
it to meta-data Mohit Sethi Asks for clarification on the meaning of the
proposed tags - what would be the process around changes. Mark Nottingham: it's
hard to discuss this without data. (Would like to see Suresh's results) Is
Extends handled by registries? Is See Also duplicating References?  This feels
like a band-aid. Discussion about existing use of Updates ACTION: Suresh will
post something about his review of current Updates rfc-interest mailing list is
place to discuss; seeking more input; not ready for "real" dispatch yet. Might
be IESG action or AD sponsor, although discomfort with that step. Spencer
argues for removing Updates from being in the RFC, so that it is all meta-data.

draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand, Brian Carpenter
Ted Lemon: who would be eligible for nomcom because of this document that
wouldn't be without it? Brian: it pushes the eligibility criteria out (esp if
108 is not F2F) making it more stale. But maybe we need to run the script and
see. Bron: 100-point check like, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_point_check
Spencer: Suggest a process experiment (RFC 3933) as a way to get started since
if 108 and 109 are only virtual, then nobody is eligible under existing
criteria, unless we have hacks like "three of the last five meetings that
actually happened". Cullen: Agree we need to do something, not as urgently as
others. Concerned this will distort other processes (co-authors, etc) Lucy
Lynch: reminder nomcom chair also subject to this criteria; concerned if pool
ends up shrinking, will get further coalescing(?) Also mention that mix of
in-person and video interviews bias selection. Brian agrees with latter, but
out of scope Martin: what we measure is what we get; don't think we need very
short-term solution Toerless Eckert: what is impact of 107 being cancelled, do
we know? Stephen: got concrete feedback, working on next revision. We should
fix this properly and not "forget" it. Current situation is already unfair to
some participants. Alissa Cooper: what is the reason for the urgency, is it
because people are concerned that in the new year they will find that they
didn't have the information to know what they should have done? Pete: Any
objection to keeping it on the eligibity-discuss list, and making a quick
decision as to what's next? Barry: will be on IESG discussion, for what to do
for next nomcom; deadline likely in April. AD sponsorship doesn't have clear
consensus if that's what is suggested.