Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 13 March 2020 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 A96063A0929 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.111 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.463, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 qiTpgXWkNCFI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f47.google.com (mail-io1-f47.google.com [209.85.166.47]) (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 2EA1B3A0928 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f47.google.com with SMTP id k4so9611089ior.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:44:03 -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:cc; bh=BneXCARPqPR9OTbHbMTQe6qKr5WDbgyQ1ehm/v/vykM=; b=OlWM+gIP3SVS3GQeFklUtsRObGNBB+3HZsLBNxFHeUjLdcYKCxuBQPE2FcABickEak FjZtQpnSVwQm5Bq8Fagr15c/h8eL5JKVRnF99dw/1WC1CjpFCzsDMEXT7rlOOJiu7Kd7 b8s+7FxSigRv7uycRE0HCYePyOTDAi47NdEfpBz3l9Xw6TLcYCXno1IhRtirJt3QOUFC Xrmvtl+zPXUxkCvT08mCKKBdLFLE1dtml/wa83SQzklJvx5Tkkl+4KQ3OUl7dn1TMbg7 pdfu+/h4BM1OtoqG/UQS/CuHDjmVxBqLh/B54jh97SQ6HH6+XJky/2eUa1mJm6mqwpuu YJvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1wtOYMYob/BZVDyxZErAQQtZef+isHVdlXl7VwgVCGQFO38R1M fq6ISCqCVe224haNP68XrDbItE5SAB1p1Nnrk9PHJ5CA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vv8Z60SLYFiDK3H4hC7lgcG2v0Q9QUcz1M9iEcB?= =?utf-8?q?9qJTqGoX4jNWporRWtb+3uWA3kXIUSJhiXiKlsm+cX/O4R4=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b78d:: with SMTP id h135mr12330383iof.84.1584110642911; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:43:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJVhrY2YdzW4T1-51Lm-3VxKpzdu2=Hq+9Gdc0vVbi=aA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/crSv4U4BYYx5Us8iHqenxjm-SsE>
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 14:44:16 -0000

Thanks, John: that's a valid third choice, and I think it could be workable.

On the other hand, noting this:

> 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.

Speaking for myself only and not for the IESG as a whole: as the IESG
noted in the message, this is a one-time thing to deal with the
imminent formation of this year's NomCom.  I would absolutely agree
with you about making a lasting change.  I have no heartburn at all
about making a decision now for this cycle, which decision might be a
slight variation on the BCP rules.

Barry

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:21 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --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
>