Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Abdussalam Baryun <> Fri, 03 April 2020 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8883A0B37 for <>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 14:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 5eLaxiuLnJbn for <>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A7B03A0B36 for <>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v2so8829391oto.2 for <>; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dRyfxL7QLT7K4kh4vTy4eOAQ9sKAycCMbgnzNzdNp4o=; b=lwOkdmh/7d1LQlzLobbO22/kPkT0SphCGh29Z0vVnxR0Tm3922kn7OcXvOxbGZB0th ctPg6K79B534xHymoKXgge4g24O3SeFiFNPctnV4X6vD4uIHl6cL3vZyD+0nPEKSw2EP ZikuB7rffsiv2+gi1o1HJFmiLSOTRBZbQ92JVKxJDC6+l4tsHIjDkm/nFRz5ZTqMqSux iB2UVN3MTzk7rFkErp6JxfZvkm6aPzbt0f4Y29dXlQueBy/nGun3y7iQIuEaHYJ64L1i Y1p4Bd195//TzHO8QeMly9Q0V2qAXLL7aGyA0pJiwg4JVDu3Pbi5119JiBwypKpW9c8L EaSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dRyfxL7QLT7K4kh4vTy4eOAQ9sKAycCMbgnzNzdNp4o=; b=XLuFR6GlxtAJsqyNnxm/ibZuCDulx/GNk3WyG32ebHMnxLKcYOVVLdSc39gY9gDTkI erFWx7m9+4t8cCJGo72I7O+dnzlpT2Ayo3mgyubVOIcU686lrwrHnrBgwE6fd9rZcE5Q BHYuWwLyhAjGBhmAYRfye3GsufFmTVlj5n+vwfxVUGsqlhV3Gd2kEWNTHofK2zepD0Fs 0kzjf6bzjcUP4M16iOO5SC3jgI91GRQVpuC8gimC1r5ip1VJR2cpWBDuKRX7+f1K/hVk vDhW9sjZzhLoj3WI940ypow2kVZByK4Q1mq0zrPQuM4oFD06ZOd/6nVfS/VBvjeme9g2 fueA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubAwAh3qGve9qJgPPqhDHDq5lgr6YDnIzRw/xR26CS0fZ+D/PCV uIaASVRRoPAr77refdmuf1CDDFdRYeldhMfuH4Uc6BpD
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJSF8eTXl2m2yOKBgylxT5ysEgggVj3zXKFoo23rapsa2v/bLqz6Y4trTfCoAnvODDNC+IdVYbwBFMC1nNJ3GU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:168f:: with SMTP id k15mr8374195otr.346.1585948180679; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 14:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 23:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: ietf <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f10f8405a2695545"
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, 03 Apr 2020 21:09:43 -0000

Hi Barry,

I think it is good to consider whom attended in person 3m of last 5m, and
also consider the in person 3m of last 6 meetings, IMHO, the importance is
that he/she attended 3 last meeting. In the IETF rule the importance is
attending three meetings, but 5 or 6m are the same for all if we consider
the absence, so that they have been at most missing two meetings of no
pandemic situation.

Who could not attend remotely in ietf107 we should consider if attended 3
of 6 last, and who attended meeting ietf107 it should be added as if
attended in person because of pandemic or because all organisations use
remotely as in person now in pandemic.

Best Regards,

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <> <&lt;;> wrote:
> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of
> how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
> This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed
> between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure
> out what to do.
> For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to
> be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
> 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
> Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the
> following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105
> (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had
> been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An
> occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become
> eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended
> 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.
> The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107
> should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have
> time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general
> matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107
> now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.
> 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.
> Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you
> think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
> clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead
> time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term
> decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more
> formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the
> near future.
> Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this.
> Barry, for the IESG