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

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Michael,



On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:38 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:26 PM Michael Richardson <
> [e-mail]>
>     > wrote:
>
>     >> My two cents...
>     >>
>     >> < SNIP >
>     >>
>     >> My suggestions:
>     >> 1) Drop the 3/5 face-to-face requirement for the upcoming nomcom
> (since we
>     >> don't really have a process for virtual participation yet)
>     >>
>
>     > If we took the proposal of just ignoring the. IETF107 meeting and
> took the
>     > rest (2 of 4 meetings from IETF103 - IETF106), would that not be
> valid and
>     > hold closest to the intention of the current process? (understanding
> we
>     > need to update the process in light of recent events for future
>     > Nomcoms).
>
> The criteria is 3 of 5 right?
> If you "ignore" IETF107 (it happened btw, the IESG and IAB got changed),
> then
> you have to change the criteria, which seems a bigger change to me than
> deciding that IETF107 and that either nobody was present or some people
> were present.
>
>     > I was just thinking that we keep it as simple as possible for now to
> seat
>     > this Nomcom and give ourselves more time to then make more
>     > substantive changes to the eligibility.  Making other changes (large
> or
>     > small), are likely to have unintended impacts so I think trying to
> avoid
>     > that may be best (IMO).
>
> I believe that there won't be more than three people who needed the IETF107
> point to qualify for the nomcom.  If we counted IETF107 as happaned, and
> nobody was there, then that would be truest to the criteria.
>
>
I may have mis-understood what you were intending (after reading your
response).  Just for clarity.

Are you suggesting either of the following?

- (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?


If you are suggesting 1, that is closest to what I proposed (but does raise
the bar post attendance as folks deciding on attendance for those previous
IETF meetings - should they have wanted to be a Nomcom member - could miss
out now that 107 would not have been a way to get a third meeting).

If you are suggesting 2, that would change the definition of "attendance".
Same for (3).

If I totally blundered understanding what you were suggesting, sorry about
that.

As for my first point, making it 2 of 4 (IETF 103 - 106), allows the same
definition which was understood before IETF 107 to hold, maintain the same
bar for that attendance and does not retroactively impact anyone who made
previous attendance decisions for this nomcom.  It just assumes 107
attendance was not possible (which it was not for "in-person") and removes
it from the equation.

I see this as the best way to avoid the most challenges since it would not
exclude anyone who could have attended 107.

regards,

Victor K