Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

+1

/Loa

On 26/03/2020 19:41, Lou Berger wrote:
> +1
> 
> 
> ----------
> On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "tom petch" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>> 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 <[e-mail]>, by 30 April 2020.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Barry, for the IESG
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> 
>> 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: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]