Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <daedulus@btconnect.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 F17AC3A0C25 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 03:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.463, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.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 XgWQb-4RaYR0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 03:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR04-DB3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr60128.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.6.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 266EC3A0C18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 03:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=l1yy3yxgLvHsfu0EiVBSL+nmds8fUESd70l+PhiMLnACFrQrOVTlWzCKcfM5FOQc6r3zqsQMfRwwPsXWdo9HyBVuS8Jf9Bu78jaZjtnp08J9QcjEFO7eC8qBtZO+uU9Ja/AcevBm0B2rRjzKEdDB8/ZJluQUKflw3/jK9bmjqP5alNq+3KSI0iA9rAd++APZXJSNu2cSxlB8/wTvBeepvIMsFR7W/JmZlkvHy9SgFaHDkyjqUp+ezKh5dx0gHAZ+h6G4AVdFqSMGg0xfy+P93G3KiIMDugc8A1JidGDAXeFyveI3TniVj/vKbxhza87NPmGYT8+g3zxQrJ6gCsI83Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nGdnU2CX5iO3dGYPe+n3Q1UYkgdu/43F/JQSmr/4Ik8=; b=GF7NuqzihJ5LliG+c9dvV91BGL0SViPTV7Mklnuv8gCljDQaWBog57etOAaxxIXHf83S/x4HCFLexjFZfh6/3kPwUjndfftqksWsTGYRk3ZVBMSv9J4i0Qz9xe+M2HPvsn5UPociai8QtIZVP0hVMPh91Ci75NuESOPJCDe3Gcix3LaT46LVhRvW06ZdfJKvt78xgXGASkTH4nuFmMp1xHVRYynuJ7gffR7TjKxmul6f0jxHernMdoDVv33agkE1VJxy+otUHz4TyU3wp9VNaY1FG7y5UVl0XxEQ4m7KyxbRD6JRcWoWXtjr6+ccVjic8ie9x4dvhqPqSzzHl4nKpg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nGdnU2CX5iO3dGYPe+n3Q1UYkgdu/43F/JQSmr/4Ik8=; b=EFv4/hdzm9bBNeEvh+Wih1YYcA72B7O310T1R8gpvbyTai/4O24v/tHQ6z9HCn80XR526Loh+7QE7yPPO/jCCDz9LMOosXBGsUWPI8ylrjzzL6sCz23atZOrwqr+A5DxIvBL843eUsgrDBtn2wI8nAsbcUeAd2Y1xpAUmy9RwT4=
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=daedulus@btconnect.com;
Received: from DB6PR07MB3494.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.175.233.12) by DB6PR07MB3125.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.170.221.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2856.15; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:26:21 +0000
Received: from DB6PR07MB3494.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5a7:735:4e9:1cb8]) by DB6PR07MB3494.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5a7:735:4e9:1cb8%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2856.017; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:26:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:26:07 +0000
Message-ID: <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
User-Agent: OEClassic/3.0 (WinXP.2600; F; 2019-11-28)
X-ClientProxiedBy: LO2P265CA0114.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:c::30) To DB6PR07MB3494.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:6:21::12)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from pc8xp (81.131.229.19) by LO2P265CA0114.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:c::30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2835.20 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:26:20 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [81.131.229.19]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: e61c688c-3a67-4764-820a-08d7d17020a8
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DB6PR07MB3125:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB6PR07MB31255F58886DA2AFE3F6F55DC6CF0@DB6PR07MB3125.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0354B4BED2
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(66574012)(52116002)(6496006)(478600001)(316002)(5660300002)(956004)(9686003)(66556008)(53546011)(33716001)(55016002)(966005)(66946007)(66476007)(8676002)(81166006)(86362001)(9576002)(6666004)(8936002)(26005)(45080400002)(52230400001)(186003)(81156014)(2906002)(110136005)(16526019); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB6PR07MB3125; H:DB6PR07MB3494.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 9pqsxeFKE6c2UoYPRiA9XVfpri6t93+1xr43OmpvPOmZHyNdubsUnIl0IWfu95o6JFfhOr5+KLCRgwWjzE12fulWnTyd6BSJKXgZ+6qKrmkML4bKtRVVodL/SwFhp3CXAtkIfObcAmPAUh1UWf41CQ==
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e61c688c-3a67-4764-820a-08d7d17020a8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2020 10:26:21.5608 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: LMSsAGKjlgI//p3fkKrTygUxmZRVetvtDuJqF4cucBCnPJlEoqBOhiaSdxhpdQO1ofREHQiw/niwklsWvBX9JA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR07MB3125
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BaFEC8Qdqs0cXmm5QtRrbaAWBgs>
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 10:26:26 -0000

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
>