Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry Leiba <> Thu, 26 March 2020 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDC13A0CCF for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.64
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPmRBsmIOFL9 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343193A09D6 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e8so5934800ilc.13 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KiklFOAqNeHfPIiu3ZlgkcLxxse2vwofT14fdRFC4wo=; b=j87hQ1Rp+FU6S91quMxEjUQ26+XVGyc5UEUPcLNGLNfIpCErjs64/w1jBrKbLvfk8m yYHH7xtuF6caCWBy3J95Mn/J5V6Bw8fqo8qnC3Sr2zlAWgLw7IG73aVGbT4Kmf1mN+MU JC+BU5cL9rmc/ZLTIa9hbaoJ3WMggAD5DNG1um3JYdEPScUD7/kJ1V7KSvfeTkNmxpRO SOJgSoNvyWfoEewPIvzbGk5A6PZxwH0yHZ8qGAGeg+kClIfqOpF+UhawkMEIolY93WKs Xzz0x4vM0hFu2SxNSd9s0IKciKE9Pt8gXVNjbstoNiWU7N6HAHYrjrH2+nagmf9xImJ+ HFgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ19oV0TFqoxm+B4qE9n7HEr8iDohhUnWRDaMF6K/NhihgBX8agT RAwXAeVB4i46qN3tnkyXAstZHNIm3su4Df2EcDQLiDpP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtplVMtJTFyI/1IKEE+5EpvmOY7GNDAid3NrlEJV59dooXWsSbCT8wM8bqNemQlAK5oD6FTQirjN4lQun2T6XE=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c90c:: with SMTP id t12mr9777030ilp.266.1585240637166; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp> <9CED509420B008E8494332F1@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <9CED509420B008E8494332F1@PSB>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:37:05 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:38:18 -0000

> Noting Spencer's comment about the risk of a process appeal, I
> continue to worry that we can't say "107 was not a meeting" for
> Nomcom selection purposes and then turn around and say "107 was
> the First Meeting of the year" for Nomcom selection purposes and
> the rest of the timeline.

I think we can, as I think the intent of the BCP is clear in that it
refers to in-person meetings.  I think a process change is necessary
to deal with virtual meetings, but I see no issue as things stand.

In addition to that, I think we have latitude to interpret the BCPs in
exceptional circumstances, which this is, and I'm quite confident that
the ISOC BoT would uphold that if it came to them.  We have to find a
reasonable way to handle what's thrown at us in the short term, while
setting up the community to do formal document revisions in the longer

Barry, individual participant

> unless the
> IESG, IAB, and ISOC BoT were willing and able to expedite appeal
> processing and carry it out more rapidly than has ever been the
> case in the past

We have actually handled some appeals quickly, and, be assured that
the IESG, at least, is committed to working as quickly as possible to
do what it can to get this year's NomCom seated and operational on

Barry, ART AD