Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860A53A091E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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=gmail.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 cJG_RNMhkpbK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (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 E17683A091C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id h9so5130348wrc.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=E8KhGEkV55zyO6PoZvxJyNRokR1zCmb3tDwgs8VMmcE=; b=gJdYYIf5V0qcmg+oU5Gg/7TBDSFMrf2rMY04o1j7FhS1CEWiY6+BJvy4EcvKOsuqIJ Ctb+3m1oC/Knpg+WBZbGTc41yN8jAVYvzhLdff2qJ1XJfLvwkJ/97mTZ3rIn7nJ9nmT3 BNFBnCvwQ2OkKELVPKUUw+W5+ru3rdqBTSXXpYDGZl5/cOW6o9u7enDIELOSTrEQX3oX 7tzkgofA/+H5sjNLC4gV14FZcVY4kn1quY0L0o+axguN7/FrJ4lIyL5AJjGlySnJjy9+ ufLDBIFIcch5oVRydeJQ9V//ClUo8ivstXn3fxxc4lyEK+u8bg69seKKD1dkWh0/inEq hsTA==
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=E8KhGEkV55zyO6PoZvxJyNRokR1zCmb3tDwgs8VMmcE=; b=WOhftjctNNTe33A9BBG1/azTk8lHUdQkZF6F3iT1OvNJCAPpDwRAmnUZTz+uN0TEFX 1I4lIlN+OGjdOAz53yqrFu7CoOVEb3eEN6eCf9t2fYIVcw42VJvne5gv/IACiENYKEe1 gaHgbVGpiBZYFyv/Fjho9//WfE9EMCW1CEDNlFPrCht8L7bXMAAtyXptBGFhvPZw84EW zQ6jQWW4k/kzrlsUio+yTUjIor3I2ybj2cGLpOHQRa9eg7ZAF/Pvt1Pbe0qKihIXHfHF qDHS22zfjFYOs6867/TRc1i1VKkpa3xPeiNwdxPhCMt9NHgXWj1oXsbac299Wi/RPRbc kmGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubIkD1IqnHNr6qobBrb5SwBs0vP+QNY+nh63AdxLqKiryZwM6da vpjdcGVNcbPXvbSF9zGa0oM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJkin9niUV5eHmKPeuoQQYE56XeO0P8Q4F8A6bINL24X7k1MwXfIIhpxynHpLJNOm/n0YuR/Q==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:bb06:: with SMTP id r6mr4567740wrg.324.1585847231202; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:b401:f1b5:b3da:f68? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:b401:f1b5:b3da:f68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o9sm3305094wru.29.2020.04.02.10.07.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0FC773BE-7B20-402C-AC7E-183A321741E0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02366580-DBA5-44CD-8619-DD24E73E37E8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:07:06 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBy7iVT4NVLw14+=a1ksWrg35q+dsKfs+9r2poiVo3wkg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com> <89730DD8-0451-4658-A0CD-83A85E2055FE@episteme.net> <0C31D020-46FA-424E-8FFD-64BBE8F952E9@cooperw.in> <1E702B62-9982-48F2-B8D6-F4F80A8DE168@episteme.net> <20200331184236.GT18021@localhost> <CALaySJ+_+-kf+3nta8LwMiwPmqPmRdOgC7KAnDfeDgx0ThVa-w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+27gcT6x5BcKU1YHHv+xeaXDnxPU0yhtBSULb36VpFWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBy7iVT4NVLw14+=a1ksWrg35q+dsKfs+9r2poiVo3wkg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0lGWCinSFivYWrnATR1xenAXpDs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:07:15 -0000

Barry,

I read the draft and I support it.

One nit:  Should it say that it updates BCP10?

Bob

d
> On Apr 2, 2020, at 7:03 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
> The IESG has listened to the discussion and has reconsidered.  We have
> posted an Internet draft:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/
> 
> Murray will be the shepherding AD, and will request a four-week last
> call later today, to end on 30 April, the deadline we had set for
> comments.  The following week (7 May) will have an IESG telechat, and
> we would expect to have the document on that telechat agenda for
> approval.
> 
> The substantive bit in the document is as I described in the message below.
> 
> Barry, for the IESG
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>> 
>> While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet
>> draft or not, I would like to know this:
>> 
>> As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough
>> consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have
>> given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling
>> toward option 1.  Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR
>> THIS NOMCOM CYCLE ONLY and SETTING NO PRECEDENT, I would replace the
>> first two paragraphs this way:
>> 
>>   Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
>>   the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
>> 
>>   The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
>>   ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
>>   volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
>>   For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
>>   IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.
>> 
>> The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
>> that outcome*?
>> 
>> That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those,
>> and I am still collecting that input further.  But for the purpose of
>> this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't
>> accept it?  If you can live with it, there's no need to respond.  Just
>> let me know if you can't.
>> 
>> Barry
>> 
>