Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>
>>>