Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 3/13/2020 12:22 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> +1
>
> An exhaustive mathematical analysis performed by staring at the two option
> paragraps for 5 seconds each has made me come up with the following preference.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:43:34AM -0400, 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.

Or to put it another way:

If you were eligible for the Nomcom or for any of the other 3 of 5 
meetings required positions at the conclusion of the 106th IETF meeting 
you will remain eligible until the corona virus threat has abated (as 
determined by the consensus of the IESG, IAB and LLC based on available 
public health guidance?).

I'd also suggest adding:

If the IETF succeeds in holding  in-person plenary meetings while there 
are still substantial numbers of company or country restrictions related 
to the virus, those meetings will count for the purposes of meetings 
attended, but will not cause any of the current "last 5" - 102-106 - to 
drop off the list.   E.g. if you had 2 of 5 meetings at the conclusion 
of IETF 106, and you attend IETF 108, you would be eligible, but any 
person eligible after 106 would remain eligible even if they didn't 
attend.   [When it looked like the IETF was going ahead, but without 
substantial numbers of participants due to the patchwork of 
restrictions, I had the above queued up as a suggestion - there also 
needs to be a return to steady state clause of some sort].

Mike