Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 17:41 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 946753A03EA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:41:18 -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=unavailable 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 qsWORcfReu74 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.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 A32633A0363 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:41:17 -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 1jCoJ6-0002Ua-BP; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:41:12 -0400
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:41:05 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <3A550BA249DD262B799D5A2C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <2023085161.538.1584118759208@appsuite-dev-gw2.open-xchange.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB> <CALaySJJVhrY2YdzW4T1-51Lm-3VxKpzdu2=Hq+9Gdc0vVbi=aA@mail.gmail.com> <DCD05465-75F2-40AB-835F-CFED376EB4FA@gmail.com> <2023085161.538.1584118759208@appsuite-dev-gw2.open-xchange.com>
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/PXKOfpBlbBSdNe_9Q3t9ZFUGFIU>
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:41:19 -0000


--On Friday, March 13, 2020 17:59 +0100 Vittorio Bertola
<vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>...
> If we want to keep 107 in the span, the best and most literal
> substitution IMHO would be to count as in-person attendee
> anyone who had at any time validly registered for in-person
> attendance, even if they had cancelled before the general
> cancellation. However, I guess there are others (no idea how
> many) who would have registered at the last minute, should all
> this mess not have happened.

Still trying to find a middle ground here...

More work for the Secretariat and probably more fragile should
future meetings be moved to virtual, but, for this one, how
about either;

(1) Registered as above  

 -or-

(2) Attended plenary remotely.

That would avoid both the objection of having to participate at
a ridiculous time in one's time zone (for reasons that were
discussed on the list weeks ago, I'm not too sympathetic about
that, especially if it is just one session, but so it goes) and
the unfortunate properties of disenfranchising would-be late
registrants and effectively letting people buy Nomcom
eligibility without doing anything substantive.

While I don't like unnecessary complexity, I don't believe that
any of these formulas are too complex to be workable.  People
decide whether they think they are eligible and submit their
names (just like every other year).  The Secretariat reviews the
volunteer list and determines who is eligible (just like every
other year).  If people don't believe the Secretariat got that
right, they protest and review the issue with the Secretariat
and others (just like every other year).  So whatever else an
all-virtual meeting implies and requires changing, that doesn't
seem to be on the list.   I think the appropriate saying for
that situation is "it ain't broke, don't fix it".

   john