Session Date/Time: 27 Sep 2022 14:00

ELEGY

Summary

This was the first meeting of the ELEGY working group. The primary goal was to review the current draft, establish the working group's approach to changes, and discuss open issues related to the document. Key discussions included the necessity of an "available data" section, the inclusion of directorate members in eligibility criteria, and the document's authorship. The group confirmed that the existing draft, reflecting previous community consensus from the experiment, would serve as the baseline, with any proposed changes requiring new consensus on the mailing list. No major changes were decided upon during the call, and the plan is to prepare the document for Working Group Last Call (WGLC) immediately after IETF 115.

Key Discussion Points

Working Group Management and Process:
- The chairs proposed that the current draft, reflecting the consensus from the previous experiment (RFC 8989), is considered the working group's baseline. Any proposed changes to this baseline would require new consensus from the working group.
- Joel concurred with taking the existing material as given but emphasized that this understanding needs to be explicitly confirmed on the mailing list.
- The milestone for publication is November, with the hope of requesting publication shortly after IETF 115.
Document Review (GitHub Issues):
- Available Data Section:
  - Martin raised an open "TODO" item in the draft to include an "available data" section, similar to RFC 8989, containing statistics about the volunteer pool.
  - Robert questioned the necessity of this section, arguing that the motivation for the experiment is over and it might be a distraction to generate the data now. He noted that generating such data would require well-defined questions and would likely not be available until mid-October.
  - Michael inquired whether the document should specify requirements for ongoing data collection, similar to security considerations' informal request for monitoring. Robert explained that ongoing data collection is becoming easier to produce and analyze, but the document does not necessarily need to specify it.
  - The general sense was that including extensive data in the document for WGLC is not essential, but presenting data at IETF 115 might be valuable. Martin intends to keep the issue open for a while but will close it if no useful data or PRs are submitted.
- Directorate Members in Path 2:
  - Martin expressed doubts about the current proposal to include directorate members in Path 2 eligibility, noting that it was initially considered when remote attendance was severely curtailed, but may no longer be necessary. He questioned if individuals solely doing directorate reviews without attending meetings should be eligible.
  - Robert reviewed data and suggested that mere directorate membership would be noisy and not helpful. Defining a metric boundary for such members would be difficult to reach consensus on, echoing past discussions for RFC 8989 where the decision was to "punt."
  - No strong support was voiced for retaining this criterion.
- Authorship:
  - Martin raised concerns previously expressed about the optics of an Area Director being the sole author/editor of the document.
  - He offered three options: hand off authorship, bring on a co-author (Stephen Farrell was mentioned as a possibility from RFC 8989), or continue as sole editor.
  - John acknowledged raising the concern but emphasized the importance of explicit discussion over the outcome.
  - The chairs and others indicated no strong opinion or compelling reason to change authorship if Martin is willing to continue the work.
Three-Path System:
- Donald expressed his intent to propose simplifying the three eligibility paths.
- Robert, speaking as a participant, argued against pairing back the existing and experimented mechanisms, preferring to stay with what has been established. He noted the paths are intended to ensure familiarity with the IETF, even if not through active meeting attendance.

Decisions and Action Items

Working Group Baseline: The current draft is acknowledged as the baseline. Any proposals for changes to the established eligibility criteria in the document must be submitted to the mailing list and require new consensus from the working group.
Available Data Section:
- The inclusion of historical experiment data directly in the document for WGLC is not deemed mandatory.
- Martin will close the GitHub issue for the "available data" section if no concrete data or pull requests are submitted for inclusion. Data may still be presented at IETF 115 proceedings.
Directorate Members in Path 2: No consensus or strong support for including directorate members in Path 2 eligibility criteria was found. Martin plans to close this issue.
Authorship: No decision was made to change the current authorship; Martin will continue as the document editor.
Working Group Last Call (WGLC): WGLC is planned to commence immediately after IETF 115.

Next Steps

Chairs:
- Post a note to the mailing list reiterating the working group's process: the current draft reflects the baseline, and any changes require consensus.
- Encourage participants to read the document and post suggestions to the mailing list or GitHub issues.
Martin (Editor):
- Clean up the acknowledgments section of the document.
- Continue preparing the document for WGLC, closing non-essential GitHub issues (e.g., available data, if no input).
Donald:
- Submit his proposal regarding simplifying the three-path eligibility system to the mailing list or as a GitHub issue.
Working Group Participants:
- Review the document and provide feedback via the mailing list or GitHub issues.
- Look out for further discussions and potential data presentations at IETF 115.