IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sun, 15 March 2020 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 9CEA93A097D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 oWSkGn7ESu2J for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp127.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (smtp127.iad3b.emailsrvr.com [146.20.161.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5A063A097C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 18:31:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp8.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id A1DE3400BD; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:31:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.91] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [50.66.148.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:31:36 -0400
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Message-Id: <F5CE569E-4927-4A8B-82C4-234F601D9F36@iii.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AFFD982E-5E2C-4B53-9D4D-9BB3652A8104"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 19:31:34 -0600
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF Crazy <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DFLVylYLtwfpQdZCXRwx6Z_lVk0>
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: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 01:31:45 -0000


> On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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 on ignore it. 

It looks to me that 107 is largely being canceled and people will not get the relationships, insights, and experience that we want for the nomcom. Treating everyone as being there is just not OK because it is unlikely they have the information we would hope someone on the nomcom would have. This applies equally to newcomers and people that have been to many IETF meetings. 

If we had an effective remote meeting, with all the types of conversations and meetings that happen at a normal IETF, I might feel differently.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email