Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Thu, 26 March 2020 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 BC7F93A07AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 iDJZtaXvOCXQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 168553A0C85 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B807A547967; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:28:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-aMvvKJ31d1; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:28:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8288A547960; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:28:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:28:57 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <5330FB2F-C6C5-4C70-B917-EFB8A4E2E9D5@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <2118E3F9-03DE-4663-B648-7BC95AFEDFC1@akamai.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <55D8F3C6-7F2A-4382-AFFD-B8A1D7C14992@akamai.com> <28066.1585242203@localhost> <2118E3F9-03DE-4663-B648-7BC95AFEDFC1@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/53YdGodi7D-YRJZQOgXsM9hOcUo>
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, 26 Mar 2020 18:29:04 -0000

On 26 Mar 2020, at 12:54, Salz, Rich wrote:

>>   I didn't understand your words, but subsequent emails make me think 
>> you are
>     saying:
>             107 occured.
>             People who signed bluesheets on more than one day 
> attended.
>
> Mostly.  I want to get the largest pool of candidates.
>
> So 107 is a Heisenberg meeting.
> 	People who signed the etherpad on more than one day get to count 107 
> in 3 of 5.
> 	People who did not, get counted from 102-106 for their 3 of 5.
>
> I realize that defining a Heisenmeeting would probably make some 
> people uncomfortable.  But I view it as just accepting the reality.

If we really want the largest pool of candidates, I don't think we have 
to be so cute; just make it 3 of 6 for the 2020-2021 NomCom only and 
define "attendance" for IETF 107. Bob Hinden convinced me that since 107 
had so few sessions, it's not useful to just treat it as a normal 
meeting, and 3 of 6 solves that issue. We seem to have some momentum 
toward dealing with remote participation generally, so really the only 
NomCom for which we have to worry about making rules immediately is the 
2020-2021 NomCom. So let's just write a soon-to-be-obsolete BCP that 
says:

A. IETF 107 became a remote meeting at the last minute and therefore had 
minimal sessions scheduled and less-than-average attendance.

B. For the 2020-2021 NomCom, we don't want the above fact to interfere 
with NomCom eligibility.

C. Therefore, with regard to the 2020-2021 NomCom selection, IETF 107 
hereby qualifies as an "IETF meeting" for purposes of Volunteer 
Qualification in RFC 8713 Section 4.14.

D. For purposes of Volunteer Qualification in RFC 8713 Section 4.14, 
"attended" and "attendance" at IETF 107 is defined as having one's name 
on the Etherpad attendance list or being in the recorded Webex 
participant list of any X sessions held remotely at IETF 107. 
[Personally, I couldn't care less what X is; any X>=1 is fine with me.]

E. With regard to the 2020-2021 NomCom selection, in the Volunteer 
Qualification of RFC 8713 Section 4.14 is three out of the last six 
meetings instead of three out of the last five. As in RFC 8713 Section 
4.14, the six meetings are the six most recent meetings that ended prior 
to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom volunteers was 
submitted for distribution to the IETF community.

Then we clean things up with a proper BCP that defines eligibility for 
remote participants, and obsolete the above.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best