Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 26 March 2020 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 290D63A03F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:46:10 -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 zz_dzxurZLgx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9623C3A0036 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [119.94.165.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44B9336503E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:46:04 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp> <17116a53ce0.277b.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <1177e73b-185c-2868-7ab6-75bbe51e1761@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:45:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17116a53ce0.277b.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Qy0BJzdhIhW-a5cAL5zhqas-DAU>
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 11:46:10 -0000

+1

/Loa

On 26/03/2020 19:41, Lou Berger wrote:
> +1
> 
> 
> ----------
> On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "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.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
>> Sent: 25/03/2020 23:14:00
>>
>>
>> ---
>> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
>> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>
>>
>> If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment
>> here, in this thread on <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, by 30 April 2020.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Barry, for the IESG
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of
>>> how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
>>> This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed
>>> between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure
>>> out what to do.
>>>
>>> For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to
>>> be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
>>> 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
>>> Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the
>>> following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105
>>> (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had
>>> been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An
>>> occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become
>>> eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended
>>> 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.
>>>
>>> The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107
>>> should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have
>>> time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general
>>> matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107
>>> now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.
>>>
>>> One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom
>>> eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103,
>>> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be
>>> eligible this year.
>>>
>>> Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has
>>> attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.  There, the last five
>>> would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for
>>> anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.
>>>
>>> Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you
>>> think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
>>> clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead
>>> time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term
>>> decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more
>>> formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the
>>> near future.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this.
>>>
>>> Barry, for the IESG
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64