Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 15 March 2020 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5C03A1B1F for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6-AupKXjMrz for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E7AB3A1B1E for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a32so7524141pga.4 for <>; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mzCmWyptvVanGy8kHvZkA5AS649acjmxmnZ0kOPcq9Q=; b=DTuo62bOquEzXGu0CREC7uLJaAjlLsfmSm74stWA0o+VF27E3KQXHZBaTtxNj4kjU0 rlbGeegpr+I+T4hVlqmOZe/DFCb9iojMw3Cvu1blghnE3yWRi93RpOrdZBU/36OHwoDH 65k+bCMPwIj4FuTc3hwVUoGquF32+doZIzDQ3ZA2dN732pdEEQmzFo7/YxuuIL0kVXay VGiAUB5V3eTq8n/2o5O/IoTnDt+raYBRFhgIxG4metISSvpwOTj6v6NQNc18pYwFujFf Py1asyw/PxeJfYoVKRqA/W4OUYBVsn+fZeXz1i4mmebBbPit4ZSYs/a14Um1FlEnZ+VF 3mLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mzCmWyptvVanGy8kHvZkA5AS649acjmxmnZ0kOPcq9Q=; b=oxukMpEJAOQUbNjj0LAV2QdMgn4cQTEtK89cFpLccfsHtUDfvnGcELp8NArADw0x+V MJhksy2adetaxqEUJ+q9mAyViXX7aHwGAiuiw12yDnDQ/HHADzlGvGlfcVtpU8KkMqMj 7bUKKBeNQ+JYcJPPrevqJqKmYp76d6TrZkC8aVSNQMYeKO3/8e2vMZ3nlU8Kb245GVN8 05j/V+y8ePfdxmOuAe+pQmfHMRMZ5b6vk49BfrmllmyUD173m4UhQ0HEssu/XmZ5TGGu SL2VyY8jsAfw228eq27vVVHHAFLfAxglhluvo1d2GYMTuHZAbG4YdrUMxWdQ9KkG7Yar ii4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1azohHBWXlxTvxO9SYW80AgZMI0PGnvC8aFdKx8+C+w+IYv3tC oO/XSfUB+PpMw/d4OJk/BvcGL36T
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vsx0qfWWQ5eeujgQ+mKXr1lGotOUSeE9KbyNRN8?= =?utf-8?q?MjABAN5Nj3cw5ap/RGGMdtuNee60l7fykQ=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:2542:: with SMTP id l63mr23217784pgl.312.1584301214250; Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id e126sm8267988pfa.122.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Jim Fenton <>,
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:40:10 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 19:40:17 -0000

On 16-Mar-20 08:23, Jim Fenton wrote:
> On 3/13/20 6:43 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> 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.
> I support counting 107 registered remote attendees toward NomCom
> eligibility, with no session attendance requirement (such as the
> Plenary). The requirement for session attendance is only meaningful if
> we expect people--who have attended two of the other meetings in the
> window--to game the eligibility system by registering with no intent to
> actually participate. I don't think that's a significant problem.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. We know for a fact that some companies
have actively encouraged employees to volunteer for NomCom in the past.
That's been happening over many years with a variety of companies. I fear
this would happen even more with an even lower barrier.

Simply leaving 107 out of the count seems fairest to me.

[For the record, I believe that I would be eligible with or without 107.
So I have no skin in this particular game.]