Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Fri, 13 March 2020 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39B13A0EBC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.463, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G1NEjtf3B-7l for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f48.google.com (mail-wr1-f48.google.com [209.85.221.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D244B3A0EDA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f48.google.com with SMTP id f3so6778280wrw.7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=v7N6pTP871KkgUrlZm3xK44OA25DmBRjJZQitpyXXX8=; b=WJ6yNiNPtlfabeIrI08XmBe9lNesPTzxS0Nkr/mu5jb/qW0ZDjBl1i6/OApGY0DSTf H/k1xh8Qae8+BwzmL3CHTwO8yEokkM0yxOG8/VTHueAnFi7ZF+fx8nmLw6qke+h3u35Q vspNgYhBZUKY7aht/bQ5PWepnATtv3wXpEmK2Scp7Qh6oDtv5cCRiuS6OfKOQQ0pdWqf oo4HEaXmIunPcG+yD8++noyyxV1ephXETpyvwafWI3MawIfY42lxetwYoejA/u5/u/Mu J3oJfbH01fe4nWEtZJxgXoUC/UqS3tmNOcTglPkEooi8NtQfVR3D5GzRjzoau/EPDWBs aCqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1XoVDGyvKnrudlt/DCrEakxnn0W41SpUJwax70WM93wUvih/5z vKIwhdeV4YE9ktAF2c1S7qLewpPWV9k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vvFaLWNiU7OYHFIRz5GrZhzRBeBxKEMgICn8/1f?= =?utf-8?q?MQIWK1h3YW8hVYXHK1HAkUyINxMlr6A8cw=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:bb06:: with SMTP id r6mr11090479wrg.324.1584132200116; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vurt.meerval.net ([81.204.118.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x13sm18733301wmj.5.2020.03.13.13.43.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (vurt.meerval.net [local]) by vurt.meerval.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 1197ce22; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:43:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:43:17 +0000
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <20200313204317.GR21734@vurt.meerval.net>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200313162255.GB8656@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200313162255.GB8656@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Yc5zrRqoUQ2s0onEmRlSCN1nbmo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 20:43:25 -0000

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:22:55PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 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.
>
> +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.

As John, Randy, and others have noted in this thread - I think we in
this discussion context simply assume IETF 108 will also be all remote.
And in that potential future, if from a NOMCOM eligibility perspective
both IETF 107 and 108 are 'ignored', where does that leave us?

I think that if IETF 107 is to take place in some remote shape or
virtual form, it should be possible to 'attend', and list of these
attendees should somehow contribute towards eligibility for the NOMCOM.

Kind regards,

Job