Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 04 April 2020 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 CBA983A0D16 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 06:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 bEM1KsCtP2AF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67B5D3A0D14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id v2so10417769oto.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=isV2KslHnO8N/9/I/n2Y3ibUgLDhYeRIfCfN5OiEXaM=; b=kw5z6ax5AJd+9EAi3fYLxDO+PoC1y6e+I1kdSsMJun09CocF0lLisI0Di8Y3zU5QkN iLNY88AjnomftA680j6aleTOchuwmvRBDo1v1H0dli6qlW2pA35xFClmD85Q1YK2btAl 4ZoWiperKvSlPpk2miDoyoVItv5mWzxD6ma2djKCbGg9GfcBHHP+dc4XzLGMbE31Ktpx MFQXctT+Gy+P8TnWa0D3sw1jNA7nO6JZxArxoba6GstV8kup+WPOs4cgyyYKjwVJONFU Njex8aaVkcGM0p0thJSLVjGbdInEoIkpunAef278iHeU+TM0y9M7WU40YQ1awapRT1VK 8r4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=isV2KslHnO8N/9/I/n2Y3ibUgLDhYeRIfCfN5OiEXaM=; b=hBr+z6Gj84NwLMFSwnYAhenKZ7/kNUpZDSpluQl8FJ1Yb0gAaBvkvUQPn46dV8h7LP 5QSUYrvar1nj9gINez3BSonlKUmQDztxw6HV82675Vjn1WWxBCJdYInc+xyUY6Nv24k0 jcN2wssUyv4GZkYPhMpPo2049JJvl4ILH3vRid6Tj+J7icC89w/GT8UVOeU7bXcV7/AZ +RDpAasanzBcYLYovMtg1I0MPW24iRhJ26A3Dk70lYpIRpK2HZXUOFpv3KZn/NQNAD+Y +7zHtXSbCFa0YIIKodbKJxg/Ex2+J2VehrNmPjSfrMxSK02XJPHpWrDidP3a6t7FmuI0 KxqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZtZiqiPh88WCABMI4QXycfh9ZC9EbMl3WPypmLuQpBaaJIqwAP rO4kdrtozZ+jd7dGhQ7/LNMSPIG6YXX1/OZOoDjAhyxV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLMraWkVNmxBMrIJL13HAjQSyR8ig1i3PqaZQHsYzJS1smQkicLYUHWJmoNHWxqq4zEDILnEG0sbiXl3tkCW1g=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:77d1:: with SMTP id w17mr10542555otl.44.1586008370313; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 06:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 15:52:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-ZeRuAbHhuq2dGmC2hYUq2k30ufLLvNFuiPU5hdRUCzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085ff1405a277598a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QSDW2wrzRDhW8mxCzJFzZ9ZUI48>
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: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 13:52:53 -0000

> I'd suggest this for the last sentence:
>
>    Because no IETF 107 in-person was held, 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*?

Yes I don't accept that IETF 102 is one of the last 5 meetings as
defined by RFC8713. There is no doubt that 102 is one of last 6
meetings.

 It is clear in section 4.14 of RFC8713, it defines that last meetings
as the last meeting and not the last f2f meetings. If you consider 107
as not a meeting and call the coming of 108 as 107, then yes I can
live with that. However, it is not right to call for 107 and then say
it was not a meeting, or it is not part of the last 5 meetings of
eligible NomCom. Therefore, 107 must be part of last 5 meetings.

> I could live with that, either with or without my suggested text, of course.

including 102 because of the pandemic is ok, because the 102 is one of
the last in-person-meetings.

Therefore, to follow RFC8713 correctly, we should consider the last 5
meetings in sequence which includes 107 (RFC8713 is clear it was meant
last 5 in-sequence more than in-person) and we also should consider
includes 5 last in-person meeting (so then we add 102 without
replacing another).

Best Wishes,

AB