IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> Thu, 26 March 2020 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <resnick@episteme.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 B131B3A0E6F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:26:44 -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 qUiogMsaTuQY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from episteme.net (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1803A0E32 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 13:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2592A54A7A0; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:26:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from episteme.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (episteme.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwfOifW4g3D6; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:26:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [172.16.1.18] (episteme.net [216.169.5.102]) by episteme.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F463A54A799; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:26:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:26:38 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <867DCFCE-81C4-4B4B-90AC-D0578D99E035@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <5A6B0A7D-7D8A-4358-9949-7B09CE441882@gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <5A6B0A7D-7D8A-4358-9949-7B09CE441882@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RJgI9Cqm89VI-G6hi3vvxL9wYyg>
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 20:27:01 -0000

On 26 Mar 2020, at 10:01, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> What worries me is how someone that has not been to a IETF a few times 
> can be I a position to understand how it works and the nuances of the 
> information that are presented. Also in person presence shows a level 
> of commitment to the organisation which is essential to fulfil the 
> Nomcom duties.
>
> The criteria were set for a reason and we should abide by that 
> rationale. For that reason I would prefer that the criteria be 
> remained at three recent physical meetings as it currently is.
>
> If, as is likely, we end up with a virtual meeting in Summer we can 
> think again, but for now we should stick with the original criteria of 
> 3/5 in person meetings.

This seems to me to be more about the general eligibility issue being 
discussed on eligibility-discuss, as opposed to the stop-gap that is 
being proposed for the 2020-2021 NomCom, which is affected by 107 in the 
next few months.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email