Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>