Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 DA99B3A0955 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 67Ple_LS_DFo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A503A094D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jHUdc-00083i-Tc; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:41:44 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:41:38 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <9CED509420B008E8494332F1@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.c om> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LKQ4xusPN4a5gfyr9D48vDGacGM>
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:41:52 -0000


--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:26 +0000 tom petch
<daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Barry
> 
> Ignore 107 entirely; treat 102 to 106 as the qualifying
> meetings.
> 
> Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider
> virtual qualification but that is for a future discussion.
> 107 has had too many uncertainties and changes on the part of
> all parties to be considered.

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.  

If a single person raised an appeal on the basis that
inconsistencies of that sort are inconsistent with the clear
language of the BCPs and possibly with fairness, 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 (and the ISOC BoT would have to sort out
procedures), we could easily end up not being able to select a
Nomcom until June or later.

Independent of the attrativeness of that approach to many who
have spoken up, I don't think it is worth the risk, a risk that
I don't think some reasonable way to count IETF 107 would pose
(if it were handled as Spencer suggests).

   john