IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 D6A323A23C7 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=fugue-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 catgvS3uVHN5 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (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 D83D43A23C4 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id f20so18825694qtq.6 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=7+ATQB7/9H63Vtcbod+bgxQj2KoLkoLm3Cqv2DCzwDU=; b=EVAN3XVFvb/hT4HZKH5idvj7V9wLcck0eCUbXYzO01opbSfvf+57rSih1T41Tyr682 oEUEd0JxKlyOVkWjYwtzgO1r2hu+Xsb7Lfs/MxkUKvZ1ZcCbx9SLwAHbTLVy567ubOaX Ly4tT8dihYVK0flZlzKBpRX5TBP65vMGTfxUJJ+PfLWyaerdHe4vV8lrV6ZtwmFJgZa7 xA7Ou83v49UZ8pgLZohF/+1vvEk1uhL7ZMqZiNCKiuPIt35XlukbFYW4JabXCW0Rr68J iLTI8E8fSb+85b5Uc5MHeFjYrzvbvKP0xhBmkV0ocpXa3u76BUpostXlG3ok661Ia1xb 1mMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=7+ATQB7/9H63Vtcbod+bgxQj2KoLkoLm3Cqv2DCzwDU=; b=WNB1pY/JyPp2a9vCfd4kTOG/IzXzusD2MQyHVoTb9CnvY5kCsqHbGWGGZ/+Gv93Tzl F9mghsqIoOqhRIaG4IjbWCGnZeIUI4Pq130jXTxCgplE1Ar5fDJVwLJRkXZ1fDygwgDX hjtJi67mqDMb1TutREpv7fjN6R1h18xIKT9QDOUNC2GCZIZoCJ5cgsxWH4ADVluGLKcn 69byrNSHRbcyRr2A+GFHoYPIxnQHOKyKV1lVkWWyUTwWjR4IebZbTlkbraJ5Epx4+pwp 48f7UZaKSSLFAwJ4r5aMcA/1B02IqrcD2X38GLhC/DAlVuNCfxEWpw6xUTJ2Ejz+9lV2 +F6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3adRE4D5A2cYR0ROfxRQF//164MQhLc38rTXdQ182H4eZVJ5Qc W/6BpIlKvrtQA3IVLXOj9InmNSKC4rs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtxh+Jh/bLsHjJM4gDIOEpqtyCVArAtDmNgnIAD3YMX0sX1oRoWgt47UDf1DcnxRE5o9qMEMg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7183:: with SMTP id w3mr5859219qto.373.1585671391507; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mithrandir.lan (c-24-91-177-160.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.91.177.160]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i13sm12766794qke.56.2020.03.31.09.16.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <0A2F31BE-4FC6-4CBF-9C29-7372A92242A8@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DDDA9DE3-F8D9-4B43-B853-E7983CDF2B6E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3622.0.6\))
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:16:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJc3aaPkfAAhPLwPhKfikjhg=15AopFntGJefhLd7t9=a-fJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
To: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
References: <28433.1585520758@localhost> <CAJc3aaNs2DipcSAdddB1PayPSFN+zRPDwyKog_LhjTu4B95afg@mail.gmail.com> <28427.1585618693@localhost> <CAJc3aaPkfAAhPLwPhKfikjhg=15AopFntGJefhLd7t9=a-fJkQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3622.0.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/iHKmQVWuLbBAi1kO4VrTrlr7Vjc>
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 16:16:35 -0000

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