Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Thu, 26 March 2020 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 888F43A0970 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 05:02:58 -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 WnoJuRteYpEC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 05:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FD43A040A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 05:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 280A060966; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:02:55 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <1177e73b-185c-2868-7ab6-75bbe51e1761@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:02:55 -0400
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <614A20AF-0D1D-4141-884B-7B5290ECC16D@chopps.org>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp> <17116a53ce0.277b.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <1177e73b-185c-2868-7ab6-75bbe51e1761@pi.nu>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5sn4KrimC43pskzkPDuoQOpHN_M>
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 12:02:59 -0000

+1

Thanks,
Chris.


> On Mar 26, 2020, at 7:45 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 26/03/2020 19:41, Lou Berger wrote:
>> +1
>> ----------
>> On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
>>> Barry
>>> 
>>> Ignore 107 entirely; treat 102 to 106 as the qualifying meetings.
>>> 
>>> Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider virtual qualification but that is for a future discussion.  107 has had too many uncertainties and changes on the part of all parties to be considered.
>>> 
>>> Tom Petch
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
>>> Sent: 25/03/2020 23:14:00
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
>>> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>> 
>>> If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment
>>> here, in this thread on <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, by 30 April 2020.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Barry, for the IESG
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of
>>>> how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
>>>> This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed
>>>> between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure
>>>> out what to do.
>>>> 
>>>> For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to
>>>> be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
>>>> 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
>>>> Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the
>>>> following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105
>>>> (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had
>>>> been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An
>>>> occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become
>>>> eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended
>>>> 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.
>>>> 
>>>> The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107
>>>> should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have
>>>> time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general
>>>> matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107
>>>> now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.
>>>> 
>>>> One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom
>>>> eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103,
>>>> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be
>>>> eligible this year.
>>>> 
>>>> Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has
>>>> attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.  There, the last five
>>>> would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for
>>>> anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you
>>>> think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
>>>> clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead
>>>> time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term
>>>> decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more
>>>> formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the
>>>> near future.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Barry, for the IESG
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>