IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 26 March 2020 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.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 E38AB3A0E89 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 OvWiISFlIxU1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7EE3A0E95 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.129] (c-68-49-104-93.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.49.104.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59D7D540EFB; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:06:16 -0400
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BD41EF7-C9D8-4FCC-A2B3-863CDD6AF12B@puck.nether.net>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QhyvZItpw8E3ogOafiCybvFVzr8>
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 19:06:38 -0000


> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:54 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear IESG:
> 
> My preference would to count everyone as having attended IETF 107.  The me, this is the most fair approach to a person that is just getting involved in the IETF.
> 

My feelings align with those of Russ if it matters to anyone, this meeting (albeit virtual) counts as in-person.

- Jared

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email