Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Thu, 26 March 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0ED3A0BDD for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 22x9qHU845E8 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5FE13A0A42 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j17so5456571lfe.7 for <>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YEAzfVzPExcsdrLg1jNMnuKHSO0csVsV2ZqhY2PDwSs=; b=Z8F1bxVwWUvLrGBfARCnI3YfeRn7bDmlqBtwv5+yO3uLPbA7LyXlnFAVLag4R/OiE9 RoudjgWrL10GzcMAqsZUsq9B2a/CU0veEV2x6evGQ+eWkMca7K9Q+owwXSnNFuXlt8Ly 0FMdGny9XFoCMhF32T9wNcT7qeX04sfnKGzFMQoKtNR8IYJLCOjOjTbSGurszLH5mb/B BwG3gCyqb1josuMzy19zKGWaPPiyzg1IVJLv5oGP9woZsGieGFfQnHdVB2AcSyenx5NT +fJRr95VH1EYOys6RZ9bmZCJh+93kwjT4feYpneZdyMdz+q5Vjxp3gc+n6dOJKq8d7bt aV1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YEAzfVzPExcsdrLg1jNMnuKHSO0csVsV2ZqhY2PDwSs=; b=eBvTQYnd1KikxjDq8uFo6KfZtAn2Y1ccLm+7wyP3SObR0UR3r64t8+X1gn78V62q+Q tus2lEQAIuXNrm7ZPwUEbPqXwQTkE8sF1RQTCiFg4dMC79lhg7BTrtkEUv8qEirZa2Zv tMCTZrM/llbRJaPzEwknOQgq8R7Xr+aTqOjHYMgdHIOpVfrIop1HXy97zE/bncozQ9HU zwbTV/dmDmI8sZ26YrUrf6MvLR/3/BoTf25m2q2hKHH0GzIKmLanyhpfKmoyh7Nwt2Q3 Nd7jC9IPffQQ1F9rclQNNL/AwJ9dwKmSAWqD6zJyXAYx8pBQyJalGoOTlFYMSGPOxj2E L2wQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0Q9gm7JmB/AnmpVOXKid2O/UMxs3zjxZtGs3mxPxeFmSpzcXzJ 22fYz3AmkeCR5bBNHQVOHv9ehlJyqn5CuRxnJ4s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsbXJHCX9L5Ra778VvylmNaSreeenXWGAKG24JjrQVrDxsXRPqJpjkuYmN1Aw+76dDwmjBk6OgKH2r5Q0SsDak=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4352:: with SMTP id o18mr6413805lfl.81.1585241800998; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp> <9CED509420B008E8494332F1@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:56:15 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Barry Leiba <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006e853d05a1c4def5"
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:56:45 -0000

Hi, Barry,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:39 AM Barry Leiba <>

> > Noting Spencer's comment about the risk of a process appeal, I
> > continue to worry that we can't say "107 was not a meeting" for
> > Nomcom selection purposes and then turn around and say "107 was
> > the First Meeting of the year" for Nomcom selection purposes and
> > the rest of the timeline.
> I think we can, as I think the intent of the BCP is clear in that it
> refers to in-person meetings.  I think a process change is necessary
> to deal with virtual meetings, but I see no issue as things stand.
> In addition to that, I think we have latitude to interpret the BCPs in
> exceptional circumstances, which this is, and I'm quite confident that
> the ISOC BoT would uphold that if it came to them.  We have to find a
> reasonable way to handle what's thrown at us in the short term, while
> setting up the community to do formal document revisions in the longer
> term.

I hope that our community will be OK with "do the right thing" in this
situation - and it's not like "we ignored the BCPs and did the right thing"
is infinitely abusable, given that we aren't talking about changing the
appeals process in any way.

I suspect that it will be really important to get back to running under
BCPs soon, and that will almost certainly requiring changing our BCPs, to
accommodate exceptional circumstances if they become the new normal, or if
they disappear and then reappear in a different form, in another year or

But seating the next Nomcom can come first, and then we can figure out Plan



> Barry, individual participant
> > unless the
> > IESG, IAB, and ISOC BoT were willing and able to expedite appeal
> > processing and carry it out more rapidly than has ever been the
> > case in the past
> We have actually handled some appeals quickly, and, be assured that
> the IESG, at least, is committed to working as quickly as possible to
> do what it can to get this year's NomCom seated and operational on
> schedule.
> Barry, ART AD