Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2020 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@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 56D633A22C6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.053
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.053 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 80TTZEvi_Ub3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (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 668133A22C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id 204so11325714ybw.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=um4AAk5tS9rc35OFnX5DqjVnBVQVj5ZfrbatT+w08lY=; b=OVDZH3UsbvOEOxV9lnljfihICkgRMC1bxN+iU1UMXwKu6o9my1UCZmwVcv1myrsaDI ovuhz/LJC1jUvGSo/aN1YvwtxkAQ9aBNyHeqKKwAaWJKWM76PUXS+6bTNZslBKxsMazu UoQWqYu1qEe18iEZXdqD94kIa1cROcJFFC+ulmpXjpjBLg+wyCyX0GwjRmDEGa8EqXoQ S/GQD5hT4/bj/vWCfbflQ+meXWl8VjGxVdNk3C0Tn7o+h9DSAlArfpwPT2xVWeV9EGQ2 VGGrwY5tAv3Bp5o/MvnaVml3Bv0KUcExU/wNQHI1/VyF8dhYuM81AsbzemgfZr9KyKF7 4Tjg==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=um4AAk5tS9rc35OFnX5DqjVnBVQVj5ZfrbatT+w08lY=; b=l9nWe5PBN2tFKg1G/1Dqvt6jcd8uIMBtLYw52wjXtTL83AFRplB23rbbQsnBwMmN0M GA43Fd0bA+x4e9U41RTO4PwxCzmBczS5uJjaQREi/tv+L6V0/dtAGrLA2UDCwn/NGWsi PzCSV5NEBLCVaj73OB6I8IXhswYHU5Z8RZDN1d5FZCJJIwwSSLOcvPKbikO1fXl95/Im Eo+Kof22TQUqFP9C7UHCjT9BXx6Zlk6xL3CNO6kA+Hwu+pOG5wNZ62fBNoXhCoXhXNYb I7+xW4+5EROLwzS3jzOCOVQ7zxVScMeV/i3acVOi+CnmG8fkQXlq1ek7jV7vVYxXbYhW pm0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ02805AFVHdjKa5mE8Caf8Vxw6FgtQEDA4/mCmmVbeeI17kZoH0 1KmmYVclgcPVe4tiNwGKbGZ+a8xvRCaYX43r5d0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsx70ENBLvRpbVEqzAMTkuubwB2VLiImLA1eVIPlh01LoNAFNOD3Ar805MZlObgod3+VU8EpJJKjZiQQ8lazkg=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aaa4:: with SMTP id t33mr28779655ybi.324.1585667723604; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCzMPGuunYZBCSh90ddY2kKJ_Hqnot0s1jmhNQ7qT0xkg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:15:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcdi_p1qgsfEPTtRe9CipM2K7LaA2LYpxUn9KNa6Xbairw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000065b75505a22809d4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ccXrVUmaLEgr7tJxB1B8Bqs6JhQ>
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 15:15:30 -0000

Hi Barry,

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:26 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
wrote:

> The IESG has discussed what the best way is to handle a decision for
> eligibility for the 2020/21 NomCom, given the timeframe involved and the
> discussions that are already happening.
>
> 1. We are concerned that a normal process for discussing a draft,
> conducting a last call, and approving a BCP would take too long.
>
> 2. We are concerned that rushing such a process by, for example, posting a
> draft now and immediately last-calling it without a normal period of
> discussion would call into question the legitimacy of our consensus process
> and would set a bad precedent.  We also note that have already stated that
> we’d like community comments by 30 April, and we are concerned about
> cutting that time short in order to write such a draft.
>
> 4. We believe the IESG does have — and must have — the latitude to address
> exceptional situations such as this and to make exceptions to our
> processes.  At the same time, we appreciate and agree with concerns about
> overstepping, and we agree that maintaining accountability and appropriate
> checks and balances is important.
>
> The IESG, therefore, plans to continue collecting input and evaluating the
> community’s rough consensus about the immediate NomCom-eligibility question
> through 30 April, as stated.  We will then post a statement and inform the
> ISOC Board of Trustees, as we would do with a process BCP.  That statement
> will serve as the basis for eligibility to serve on this year’s NomCom, and
> this year’s only; it will NOT remain in effect beyond that brief timeframe,
> and will make that aspect clear.
>
> If rough consensus of the community is that it is important for the IESG’s
> decision to be published as a BCP, we will do so, handling that after the
> immediate need for a quick decision has passed and making the publication
> for archival purposes.
>
> We also encourage the community to continue and complete the two efforts
> that have been started, to formally define an exception process, and to
> update NomCom eligibility requirements to account for virtual meetings and
> for remote participation.
>
> Barry, for the IESG
>
>
What happened to Number 3?
Regards,
Behcet