Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> Sat, 14 March 2020 02:12 UTC
Return-Path: <victor@jvknet.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 891703A0522 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 uNMcqlX3mtHX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E918D3A0437 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id t2so4377994wrx.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jvknet-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3eo807QRS1jas597upKAD2eEKlictvjDMGW3jql4qiY=; b=o4cyLWyUenYzlNqMFPSLidDv2GCmGiFki+6t40syi335Nq9dZCP2xSsQt6IDsXusil U8r6+aaruzmKhJqLdTG3HpbuhRYotJIvtxys+h2Xf8iI6/p3FQVOI2bgTyrndqWnaxVw kRm8owVxmbI9DrnHmmICcbdg75g/4FxBdAQKFg241ejYfLxHw0Ani9svTjXm/AKQTOKH Y9xDx3BHTkHP76z4S7ym1pWNUwYWMytJF6c+R6xUToT4cUCWrUchOOmR5Vw8tBBMvjNB X+aEl0dvFJSBh1gEpb5pLORNt+edntcfvm06glPVALlar7xqrcEOYnmavUsDTf9pIXMS G/jQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3eo807QRS1jas597upKAD2eEKlictvjDMGW3jql4qiY=; b=pA3bt3O0jLwfi7dILHwzojz6bqrr2LfQElg1whGFcJAaE2nRkOusRvzV8JHg+u4gHs nvkJDChHJoOYEvfIgVvvK5qlloJ8Toeny3WhF9AEfaFCVczmQG9uAOI/wxVzdwvyO4bE 2u/GS7ilWb7w4oxvuzyiozDW+mCnJS0mL4BkJP+6DrHM57hHBeWlzZY3wfokr4cqNxh8 KACaIsCCL0BJnGZ33FRyYm/q2eXQAA3AzUNHQw7pIOCKdfpOZlw5pvZ9k7OPWBAjxpNM nlRuT5//3BqlRvgslGlHjTshbWa/C7tO4QVUEpmseJkUWJnDuw4GtMkAvIVywsUVSadx JrgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2EVxYqYjy3kAgZFok+JPpk94IjOXt57GUhnWpvUjbgj09xRmcX VvGPgTOxvFY996LtDGEBTi2IQErKG3E6gpMVq0JjTw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvWD1DUfnFzgWr0HiGWMaPsPuXtGRXVXs+vwjJz0r8DXSy1HFIR3ZpaoPs83x/6shvgVKzTxb+pj5DsTbHZB0c=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ab4d:: with SMTP id r13mr21624543wrc.188.1584151911927; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200313162255.GB8656@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200313204317.GR21734@vurt.meerval.net> <CAA=duU0jN0y12_HpzzK73BRD+x19ZQn74V=ju2_wwS-RUL_9Yw@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+r2OrFVbZj=3fTRUapkDkxap2T-p+QzNfaqK4N0c+haQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+r2OrFVbZj=3fTRUapkDkxap2T-p+QzNfaqK4N0c+haQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 22:11:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJc3aaMX87WjG6__jE0O3r4NufRS2kf=F9y2FBifbXeSpAVGTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb1fcf05a0c71b94"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CrAiJvgt6RIhw2UGEwt9-LajxNY>
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 02:12:04 -0000
Berry / All, For this discussion (task at hand), it would be my opinion that we would go with the approach of removing IETF107 from the criteria. We would either use the previous 5 IETFs (as noted by some) with a 3 of 5 attendance or we could do 2 of 4. Both of those options keep as close to the original intent of the RFC. I would have required the potential NOMCOM voting members to have been present for recent meetings which is the current practice. I am not opposed to trying to sort out how to include remote attendees in the future, but we should not try and solve that right now. In line with what Berry noted, we need to solve for this year’s selection and that work will need to start up in the near future. Regards, Victor K On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 19:55 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > Just a reminder: for the purpose of THIS discussion, we just need to > figure out what to do for THIS NomCom selection, which will happen before > IETF 108. Of course, that NomCom might have to sort out how to do its work > completely remotely, but that’s its job, not ours. > > For the longer term, we need to decide if and how to give NomCom > eligibility for remote participation, but let’s please not try to do that > in THIS discussion. There will be a GenDispatch session on 23 March, and I > strongly encourage people to get time on the agenda and make a proposal > there for work on that topic. > > Barry > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:26 PM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree with Job, Even if we could hold IETF 108 as planned, I would >> expect a large number of remote attendees just because people might still >> be wary of travel. The time has come to determine a criteria for including >> remote attendees for NOMCOM eligibility. The existing criteria is in-person >> attendance for at least one day. My personal preference for the new >> criteria would be in-person or remote participation in one or more working >> group/BOF sessions and/or the plenary, as determined by electronic blue >> sheets or by logging in to the conferencing system. That's just a >> suggestion, I'm certainly open to other suggestions for the new criteria. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:44 PM Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:22:55PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote: >>> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:43:34AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> > > 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. >>> > >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > An exhaustive mathematical analysis performed by staring at the two >>> > option paragraps for 5 seconds each has made me come up with the >>> > following preference. >>> >>> As John, Randy, and others have noted in this thread - I think we in >>> this discussion context simply assume IETF 108 will also be all remote. >>> And in that potential future, if from a NOMCOM eligibility perspective >>> both IETF 107 and 108 are 'ignored', where does that leave us? >>> >>> I think that if IETF 107 is to take place in some remote shape or >>> virtual form, it should be possible to 'attend', and list of these >>> attendees should somehow contribute towards eligibility for the NOMCOM. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Job >>> >>>
- NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Mary B
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Russ Housley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Carsten Bormann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Russ Housley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Paul Wouters
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Eric Rescorla
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stephen Farrell
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Carsten Bormann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Paul Hoffman
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Toerless Eckert
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Vittorio Bertola
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Randy Bush
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 (was: … tom petch
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Eric Gray
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Job Snijders
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Randy Bush
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Andrew G. Malis
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 S Moonesamy
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 S Moonesamy
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Cullen Jennings
- AW: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 N.Leymann
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jay Daley
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jim Fenton
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Forced virtual IETF 109 as well as 107 S Moonesamy
- Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility discus… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Venue for post-IETF 107 Nomcom eligibility di… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 tom petch
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lou Berger
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Loa Andersson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Christian Hopps
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Donald Eastlake
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Jared Mauch
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Lars Eggert
- RE: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Scott Mansfield
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Alissa Cooper
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Yoav Nir
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael StJohns
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Richard Barnes
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Robert Elz
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Joel Halpern
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Barry Leiba
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John Levine
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Pete Resnick
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Nico Williams
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107 John C Klensin