Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 71CFC3A0DFB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 zIP-6FH7tqFE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f47.google.com (mail-ot1-f47.google.com [209.85.210.47]) (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 7444F3A0DC4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f47.google.com with SMTP id x11so3933864otp.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=U7sghvJLI3Shu64qiaaSQExmKk6t0ZJFp0hBjsIZdx4=; b=t5zwg6Wch/wZaIz6wgiLAv1JNYz0dWMS+4r0Q3+jQmhK/O6uafs64C/3YRm8uBSz05 I79jAnnRNCRdjCBSbCVUfUSL7GwPsviTbYfEGJiy1PmpQA1giq54KKSNmjihC/qrbx4n ntnwfS4pK5p4N6+/dn3PWlOs5nIIvRgjN/M/d5FGxkzbKWmR9tpdaNaY/4UJ91i1oaLG J1/aULuT9le63AvV6kSCwIq8CpWZHoKElVRvSt/0CoquRQQmBr72ZwqFNsrGAs6ATSE9 pp2ycsVuGs4EUurT/FZKU4NnISyynXUlSNCnz/uA9xzHGcPMjdhUAh2vE2Eearj1ACXG kdIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ03olbsNVkxYaP1NznSjD1qKR0cz6hWZVQ4u6CziAKWcd532Mtz s8csYAgpHP7XNENRv5MfUZ/54BjG379Ce1Vlyb5bYw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuuIebfxjoxx4xrmZs5O2yEaMwcnw8h3Nxx3jl7I7ZSmBFwkQr+iRr197kBjOpu79r5ihwTMdYUgnMV4PxFwDU=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6b98:: with SMTP id b24mr4150155otq.242.1585178051633; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:14:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cc3rdjSTz8Vrzps8Ci6fi-VIDq8>
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:14:42 -0000

If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment
here, in this thread on <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, by 30 April 2020.

Thanks,
Barry, for the IESG

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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
>