Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 3:26 AM, tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Barry
> 
> Ignore 107 entirely; treat 102 to 106 as the qualifying meetings.

At this point, I agree with this approach.  I though differently early, but that was before I saw the limited agenda for IETF 107.   Except for the plenary, the sessions that were scheduled didn’t overlap with my interests very much.

We will need to be prepared if IETF 108 isn’t face to face, but we have some time to work that out.

Bob


> 
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>, by 30 April 2020.
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry, for the IESG
> 
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> 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
>> 
>