Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Michael StJohns <> Tue, 31 March 2020 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5D03A2648 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M7U6-_jDtubf for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B28CC3A2646 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id JKvujjPf9lbu3JLPbjNDqR; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:14:55 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20190202a; t=1585678495; bh=aSysOdcfwT4C4vXpDMJy20Uxu6PVQOLMN8RHhmiIuH4=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=XFFlxUOIdOUWnnf6Wa+8/Sb8gD9weGkPTU1bPexsuWMJUTI5NMTZgdqr064A+Q/Wo vq9JP2d3U0oYnZ4f1wy65rF7TcOBidRNqM4R6QGml/3tl8WyKnLvY5/tSei6If5LA3 Z0cg3HxIbHG6DODMvYtQaJJrunzGeKeOZWIpBrn1tulbM9BXDboeMQJmUbNEUUGJKq xgBzVb1IHM2Xde5DvPz0OZtCG9tYRqhguTCaMCnDyYKMZZM/5hrfNCRytyChJfFTMC bmyVwn9KZAt3X6k2DiI/3dCoEs2SZ8KBwZGGmtQ133qUr+0qDT/gBTuz9jDnwPsUD2 zPtZDiQC/BWNQ==
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id JLPUju0egbBT8JLPVjqaOs; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:14:53 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrtddtgdeltdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepofhitghhrggvlhcuufhtlfhohhhnshcuoehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeejuddrudeifedrudekkedrudduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddrudduhegnpdhinhgvthepjedurdduieefrddukeekrdduudehpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhsthhjohhhnhhssegtohhmtggrshhtrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepihgvthhfsehivghtfhdrohhrgh
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:14:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:14:58 -0000

On 3/31/2020 1:56 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> We made much larger changes to the nomcom process a couple of years ago long before any consensus documents were published. The changes made to the nominations process for the IETF Trust and the LLC Board were reflected in the work of both the 2018 nomcom and the 2019 nomcom, but the documentation of them didn’t finish IETF last call until June 24, 2019. There is no reason why the current circumstances should be held to a different standard

Um - no.    We didn't change the process so much as add additional 
groups to the existing framework.   There was broad agreement that the 
basics weren't up for revision, and that the paperwork was mostly 
backfilling the consensus and was an adjunct to processes that did have 
consensus (IASA changes).   Basically, apples and rocks.

In the current case, I've yet to see consensus, and I'd be surprised to 
get one.    Mainly because we're mostly working without data.   
Basically, it comes down to how many people will drop off the list if we 
exclude 102 (103-106), how many people will get added to the list if we 
include 107 remote registrations (102-107), and  how many will be 
subtracted if we do both (103-107)  or  added if we do neither 
(102-106).    And finally, for the newly eligible, what percentage might 
actually volunteer?

At this point I really don't care all that much because it's probably 
not going to materially affect the outcome of the Nomcom process - 
mainly because it was unexpected enough that no one was in a position to 
game this easily.   Selecting one of these 4 different options at random 
may be the best strategy - everyone will be equally annoyed, but it 
might be possible to get consensus.

Later, Mike