[Gendispatch] Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Re: Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

Joel, yes, as long as there are at least three in the opt-in pool, then at least three of the 10 will be from the opt-in pool. A “changes since last draft” should be included in the future which would have given a place to make that explicit.

When the list of volunteers is published, can I challenge someone self-selecting for the opt-in pool? That should be made explicit. See also the next question.

In Section 4.1, is there a rationale for allowing someone to only volunteer for the opt-in pool, as opposed to also adding them to the mixed-gender pool?

In Section 4.2, just use “10” instead of “n” to make the math simpler.

In Section 4.3, I think it will be easier to just treat an alternate selection just like when there are too many people from the same company as it does not require editing the primary list based on the first set of selections.

On 8/17/26, 1:18 PM, "Joel Halpern" <[e-mail]> wrote:

To confirm that I am reading it correctly, this revision proposes reserving significantly more than one seat for the alternative gender pool, as long as there are enough people in that pool?

Yours,

Joel

On 8/17/2026 1:11 PM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
Hi all,
There is a new version -04 of this document that should include all comments from the gendispatch session. Tara is now a co-author.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation__;!!GjvTz_vk!Xnz3Z2XLJX1sHRzJqFhhJSeVotzgt6ILZ7yphAXMmLre3zpflzk7PDlcY3Imd8VaHT7xGsqW7nk$>
-Mallory

On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 3:28 PM S Moonesamy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Mallory,
At 03:47 AM 22-07-2026, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>  2. To the gendispatch chairs and/or Roman: this is a closed WG
> which means that while there is a list, there is no chair. I
> requested in today's session that there be persons responsible for
> determining rough consensus on this document for publication. That
> request is outstanding. Please advise.

The minutes do not show the request which is mentioned above.  The
decision taken was for further discussion to take place on another
mailing list.  That fits under "venue identified" (re. Charter).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy