Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 6384D3A08C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TA_uTn0YJFds for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2622E3A0874 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jClBx-00029W-5r; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:21:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:21:29 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/a3dft97D_wVeg41w1uwWIDCiNBY>
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 14:21:47 -0000


--On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@computer.org> 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.
> 
> 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.

Barry, I suggest adding one other possibility to the list, one I
thought I mentioned in passing to the IESG in another context.
It might be a middle ground between your suggestions.  Since,
formally, IETF 107 is going ahead as virtual, why not count
virtual attendance as "attendance".  For example, we might say
that someone has attendee if they (i) register as a remote
participant and (ii) attend at least one session (and/or at
least the plenary) by logging in on WebEx for that session.  

That would have the advantage of your second option to require
at least some minimal level of involvement.   Of course, someone
could log in on WebEx and then sleep through the session, but
people can come to in-person sessions, sign the blue sheet, and
then sleep through the session too.

The difficulty with simply ignoring IETF 107 is that, while it
was fairly arbitrary, that "five meeting" rule was intended to
restrict the Nomcom to recent participants, not just those who
have participated.  Whether that was the right way to accomplish
that goal or the right formula is part of the longer-term
question, but it seems to me that pushing the formula to what
would effectively a "three of the last six normal meeting
cycles" is not a change we should make lightly.

   best,
     john