IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <victor@jvknet.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274E93A1813 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wVh2kDWImAP0 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32f.google.com (mail-wm1-x32f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D7723A1811 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32f.google.com with SMTP id j19so3518482wmi.2 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AzF63F9LsMYqL1I8xXpxJ9C4SG24ttl8qloFu5AcOcE=; b=plu2exi+cvBdD2wS1E1QkR8AGFR8uvKySJJALESjfiXLkvz73ZF/nE38bupT/iCjR9 zvo/CNInGJC16AJtDc/cbA6W68O5BtuKz1Zg5yhkcIXIczfF0p7L2q9B4Ar4FZM2aQu4 6pDyIO4yLEXn2EoJAhPE8LhjxKACBLZuDA6nyp5vUKKW/vs5bwBdatXWhgW02es+4LAR rWEKQgqn+EbJ9wglbzHF/VSbJt9EANS6kBIxl65KMIxh7M1tAOhNMwW2Rwnxbrg62kNp SrkGATBrpEEuFvmII2iITQCpokuKGYLyOCDuBZfKD0/jtd2aHGObOdWc0n6Ut6+v8eVS IP7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AzF63F9LsMYqL1I8xXpxJ9C4SG24ttl8qloFu5AcOcE=; b=T9p+tBSDUBfbpxP55Uw1e/2Lgh5s024voiF9NQl3BB+Bv5vqcJFBIoKoBow2l1P0uz EVl8XNx4cntYF3liq/omf1GCs7AjkvnR6UK5aPyfJSCejU+8osO4hCWlRzFvUWjN/gYD Rl+g3aCzUA/2iZ0SgeDpcUR6rox5TljuhkWR6bGC4xM9wdWscI0OijiH5SipI62A/NgI 2FGiGpuNthnbnKddIr0x1+yoCiM3BMIwUme/943KZblq0auB0MEmR3C+J087VYdGAMrZ 7cWvYRFJVLyAy0YCAlNk+4rduyj4LjRwKVCY5FzeimcCLMUaFp3CK3xEX5qYMHC2woM4 b/UQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0FZV74nzDqeZJZfK/5WvgCIXVfWiwu4o4rBL3lrMMic8Dvo1fm 0n9BtZEGNCZNpH/zgo9SCxjNVjrWuKNrrYiQj/3IQj6XOy4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vu8duP0QBMtIJtfJOvKV4IuHoT1JRQyLMAmxf7K6Yk6j9QgwIdQUIJMDK3GHHaml4heZVSkzByg/rEDLWcEOBg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:80d3:: with SMTP id b202mr4238493wmd.8.1585672210561; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <28433.1585520758@localhost> <CAJc3aaNs2DipcSAdddB1PayPSFN+zRPDwyKog_LhjTu4B95afg@mail.gmail.com> <28427.1585618693@localhost> <CAJc3aaPkfAAhPLwPhKfikjhg=15AopFntGJefhLd7t9=a-fJkQ@mail.gmail.com> <0A2F31BE-4FC6-4CBF-9C29-7372A92242A8@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <0A2F31BE-4FC6-4CBF-9C29-7372A92242A8@fugue.com>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:29:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaOzHOsohZ60zLo5H3vR=M6LJv7MgcymyDZrX0xSSCX5aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d74f4c05a2291445"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/TzhxugWxVk6q5Trj4S-wgvBi7qo>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 (fwd) Scott Mansfield: RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:30:14 -0000

Ted,

That works too, but would in theory change something retroactively.  I am
not opposed, but it may be open to post selection challenge (i.e.
using rules we set after the fact).

regards,

Victor K

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:16 PM Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 2020, at 12:01 PM, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> 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.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email