Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Barry.  This works for me.
Yours,
Joel

On 4/2/2020 10:03 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The IESG has listened to the discussion and has reconsidered.  We have
> posted an Internet draft:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/
> 
> Murray will be the shepherding AD, and will request a four-week last
> call later today, to end on 30 April, the deadline we had set for
> comments.  The following week (7 May) will have an IESG telechat, and
> we would expect to have the document on that telechat agenda for
> approval.
> 
> The substantive bit in the document is as I described in the message below.
> 
> Barry, for the IESG
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> 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
>>