Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 31 March 2020 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557673A2A83 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2eY-ArFDWH7 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:36:40 -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 57AF33A2A85 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o3so17468893ioh.2 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:36:40 -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; bh=tpsCaGgVu8yjmPYUADYcyPPACYloyy1D5V5DgLuC410=; b=D+e/KmaAoXmR2qyZWXQTLkC9BbTVWO6Dj8+N8vCqlHE0a3XA26ksn03xRFlZ/xuEiE NyAGBHNVzG28x9FPwnQyG3XzuYkXgEG1hRCK+b20Z6Tq6ZzjCSKTIdQf4DtR3z5MDZWi KIzaERr94KvF7TNqbeuGAojTgGWTJJYmOibi0WfFkgTq0F7/xl9tZHDLbGRAODWgu5sK JuG69xCSanexBlQSwf7SbYeU0+njFVRYBVngdD+VvRpuL23ROt/PCiV7m34aVYcJOH8D k+4i9Ku6a4p/oH5WJbiG0aLgfJWXx5+2ItkcEfCmqMno4DkoyVG+PbSjddO72IcJMiaU 4BhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ29B5x7vbvq9NVsAdlOYd5nITiLlh3OpYJfKIAjsSCzN65fKgIH Ti89EBTpvzY3lx4fAEqREEi3q5MlZXqC9sI52AF3/6Ua4pw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vv5uNnaldfiHeFXpxAH+hIt1CcEULdht/QIK5VIzRUgC0kRiHfQmubpuyp2XqRze/90qOLSjrXo3BHocRYTwjU=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:734c:: with SMTP id a12mr16431777jae.140.1585683399072; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20200331184236.GT18021@localhost> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:36:28 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: 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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:36:41 -0000

While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet
draft or not, I would like to know this:

As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough
consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have
given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling
toward option 1.  Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR
first two paragraphs this way:

   Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
   the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

   The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
   ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
   volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
   For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
   IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.

The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
that outcome*?

That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those,
and I am still collecting that input further.  But for the purpose of
this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't
accept it?  If you can live with it, there's no need to respond.  Just
let me know if you can't.