Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 DBCDF3A0909 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 iyiebPs3lv1p for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (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 731FD3A0906 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id 22so10992644pfa.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2HTPHixqT4ZamofxlnVIz/+BbFdjWKmqDLVu4w1kGFM=; b=vGIvZYhUVKAsR21QNyM2pPSgICvLbnyjCoSvXsmYUDXrvEIL9KK+z3LruRBdDK9iLF j10nc5UtYA+SE6L0bxJKQr5wr+GNR5LPdOtODEnwNjMIH+ARx/UCnRc3XQan2uRbzFKQ FEmEjYTzP9LEuGSJLM+i+aSNETabFoOOWrW1DmM/wJaaPUOum5SKdCE7Lmb5610eHnCg Xr8Du3bGGB0/24MqFK0SdU+pxb22edHxq0sVQvdL8vEtyjLjsIcCf/4R6slth4w10hjg nQw0Lx73MJezzYjZK4Si4E3xNRRM1EO5Vj64k3sn5qpRJ8tANWuFBY1RYZb/9udqVNLN iubA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2HTPHixqT4ZamofxlnVIz/+BbFdjWKmqDLVu4w1kGFM=; b=jJ0t6qohP0ubP80rUinWbmPJdpEkB/oAxWfBaQL6b8R5S2lWKcpk7hLY90VIdEJTBr Jvs1xWVx42bWQGxscxwiYs32QGCAjNTLPKWnbdWnlVJQjZ6ioTfq+Q2cBn5b5KbMndCm c8CiRznO3CjhLdDNtsLxcULjWzvJvt3RVPIbFQb2M3rLGggvx5ij8esJEY/sXKuPZLyP CCIGSDzoflqBJIZRFwTjW+jqqmIFIYrue7OnNA6OorQYp9NnhWmFQgR+QIvmx2Xseqqo ai9Zalu/AM2cxS40nm3PCbfcUDtOnf7KKO5o8DAT+QttCF679zdIqcaVQ3GrfSROCFYP bL8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3pNzferboOTLeKggVYtjACqBmhGtFxhLbxqZxSrHU4gr3APaM9 LVfsp68g1FWZMzg2au8SvoYV0iCb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vshoxw5GezdVRlCGCLyrG2mVzW0J93j7gVsfWYa5Jt22B9HQEoMS7/J1LrC42hSCLLgotjTMQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9dc1:: with SMTP id g1mr20682623pfq.308.1585690312374; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.25.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d23sm67930pfq.210.2020.03.31.14.31.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com> <89730DD8-0451-4658-A0CD-83A85E2055FE@episteme.net> <0C31D020-46FA-424E-8FFD-64BBE8F952E9@cooperw.in> <1E702B62-9982-48F2-B8D6-F4F80A8DE168@episteme.net> <20200331184236.GT18021@localhost> <CALaySJ+_+-kf+3nta8LwMiwPmqPmRdOgC7KAnDfeDgx0ThVa-w@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+27gcT6x5BcKU1YHHv+xeaXDnxPU0yhtBSULb36VpFWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32bcacf1-0cd3-6743-dc69-f64d3b3a0eb5@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:31:47 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+27gcT6x5BcKU1YHHv+xeaXDnxPU0yhtBSULb36VpFWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/brazbE4oV5k0hXb0iaFC5h78xNM>
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:31:55 -0000

Works for me.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 01-Apr-20 08:36, Barry Leiba wrote:
> While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet
> draft or not, I would like to know this:
> 
> As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough
> consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have
> given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling
> toward option 1.  Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR
> THIS NOMCOM CYCLE ONLY and SETTING NO PRECEDENT, I would replace the
> first two paragraphs this way:
> 
>    Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
>    the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
> 
>    The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
>    ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
>    volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
>    For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
>    IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.
> 
> The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
> that outcome*?
> 
> That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those,
> and I am still collecting that input further.  But for the purpose of
> this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't
> accept it?  If you can live with it, there's no need to respond.  Just
> let me know if you can't.
> 
> Barry
> 
> .
>