AW: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

Entirely ignore IETF107 and count the last five meetings before.

regards

Nic

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ietf <[e-mail]> Im Auftrag von Barry Leiba
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. März 2020 14:44
An: IETF discussion list <[e-mail]>
Betreff: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

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