Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 (fwd) Scott Mansfield: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I don’t see how this helps with inclusion. We simply have no way to account for IETF 107 attendance. There’s no magical rule we can come up with that accomplishes that. 

We could have a double rule: if you attended 3 of IETFs 103-107, treating remote as in-person for 107, or you attend 3 of IETFs 102-107, then you are qualified. 

This errs on the side of inclusivity, but doesn’t follow the rules. 

> On Mar 31, 2020, at 12:35, Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Loa,
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:25 PM Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Ted, et.al.,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/04/2020 00:16, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> > On Mar 31, 2020, at 12:01 PM, Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail] 
>> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >> - (1) We keep 3 out of 5 for IETF103 - 107 and just ignore 107 which 
>> >> means you really needed 3 out of 4?
>> >>
>> >> - (2) We keep 3 out of 5 for IETF103 - 107 and assume everyone got 107
>> >>
>> >> - (3) We keep 3 out of the 5 IETF103 - 107 and fine a way to assess 
>> >> "attendance" for 107?
>> > 
>> > Another alternative which is what I thought I’d heard proposed a while 
>> > back was to simply not count IETF 107, so we’d do IETF 102-106, not 103-107.
>> 
>> Yes that has been proposed and is the only workable proposal I've seen.
>> 
>> We need to seat the NomCom fairly soon, so lets do 3 out of 5, for 102
>> to 106.
> 
> Sorry to drag this out, but in this proposal, someone may not have attended IETF 102 in person, gone to 2 of the next 4 IETFs and planned on attending IETF 107 and would therefore be excluded.
> 
> If we made it 2 or 4 and ignored IETF 107, there it would be been in line with any attendance plans and decisions one would have made.  It does lower the bar (2 of 4 vs 3 of 5), but does not raise it or change the rules.  We would fault on the side of inclusion vs. exclusion in this case. 
> 
> This would also us to seat the Nomcom quickly since the only adjustment is we ignore IETF107.   
> 
> I fear that including IETF meetings into the equation retroactively can lead to challenge (as noted). 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Victor K
>  
>> 
>> Once we have the NomCom seated, we have one year to do real work, if we
>> have continued problems with further cancelled meetings.
>> 
>> /Loa
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert
>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]