Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Tue, 31 March 2020 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.net>
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 18AF23A26DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 9eMLBdHJNkle for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76EAE3A26FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA21A5FCC2B; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:33:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vKmMkdToVc1X; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:33:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1B4AA5FCC21; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:33:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net>
To: "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:33:26 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <DDB28520-2241-4AC6-A3DF-B0C6E400C701@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQSCZqurO93mHBogCcq5ZFn5G7PP27cc-b6hvYN1sg4HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com> <89730DD8-0451-4658-A0CD-83A85E2055FE@episteme.net> <0C31D020-46FA-424E-8FFD-64BBE8F952E9@cooperw.in> <CAL02cgQSCZqurO93mHBogCcq5ZFn5G7PP27cc-b6hvYN1sg4HQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NBRqSgzUs6RDq5LKoqRPBvDfuhE>
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 18:33:40 -0000

See my reply to Alissa for the rest. But on these two points:

On 31 Mar 2020, at 13:25, Richard Barnes wrote:

> We have an immediate, tactical decision to make, with time constraints 
> such that the full IETF consensus process is not viable.

That's the crux of the disagreement. We have to get the decision made in 
a bit over a month according to everyone. (If the ISOC President chooses 
someone who has gone to 3 out of 4 meetings IETF 103-106, then we've 
even got longer.) That's perfectly viable. There's no need to rush to 
the extent the IESG is doing so.

> And if they screw it up, we can fix it when we have time.

There are outcomes that are fixable. There are outcomes that are not. 
Why go down a road that does not need to be gone down? The current 
processes are agile enough for this particular case.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best