Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Michael StJohns <> Fri, 13 March 2020 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C353A0F52 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:25:12 -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 WZkXix7xjtDq for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B76EB3A0F56 for <>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id Co0vjV1YtYmJiCo3ZjL6qW; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:25:09 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20190202a; t=1584120309; bh=3jX2IJJ26Mw/HRKB/XOX1gEqvmObMiqETgoh86PylrU=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=Jx0oheobnzwWQYAJI+HjrMJ8P/+M7e08Co8XV7jM9nmSV37i0OQFfqg4HoUwwioZw uzZFMI5OU23byOX/LhfZioW5PJesjcbjHUkNVsloR7R9CMzAGMjLDm+VSsR+ggnhQ/ 3Qlk+QnpY05wDquMxk6qpMrLUayxF+vn+URZRhL1OYAzQPx+6PhyfwdhkGvlwLoLWJ L/8KnJ3oru3vCbR8zce+ojxlxXPajDqorRfudwFLQsRB5frrzWxnBDiNVylK4964pT DZNdRaz5ywFMRmPtDD59KTAjjNfw/J555Tr2r5HPPOSjE2E8+/WmwG/tQ6AFgUGzhB EyvhR3VB1Q9xg==
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id Co3Tjg5G2TUlPCo3Tj2KGU; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:25:07 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: =?utf-8?q?gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddvjedguddttd?= =?utf-8?q?cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvgh?= =?utf-8?q?sihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecu?= =?utf-8?q?jfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepofhit?= =?utf-8?q?ghhrggvlhcuufhtlfhohhhnshcuoehmshhtjhhohhhnshestghomhgtrghsthdrnh?= =?utf-8?q?gvtheqnecukfhppeejuddrudeifedrudekkedrudduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufh?= =?utf-8?q?iiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddrudduhegn?= =?utf-8?q?pdhinhgvthepjedurdduieefrddukeekrdduudehpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhst?= =?utf-8?q?hhjohhhnhhssegtohhmtggrshhtrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepihgvthhfsehivg?= =?utf-8?q?htfhdrohhrgh?=
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
References: <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:25:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:25:12 -0000

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].