Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]> 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
>