Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@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 32BEE3A0EB9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 RrCcdGIJ_Dn9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 906623A0E9B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id k21so7635833ljh.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ei/ujJCKy5TdpKFh0IPHi/P/TbA2VnbxBnWzcAh5Uh4=; b=n5K/F++xCm5HKm8MjJzT8CX625FtHDIFLzmCHqy3FHgC6PhXxyVFeZyl2hvS2wG3xE QeiwslbR+5FDUUnffew6bfdueIE/Fni06vHceDNVYetykQS5ZZ5jp3SRi6JCJklvhtQr GnQNCQtk+pGRW4bpHIkRs0+s6JcJEPn6GcI6J7LTIOcFMAJjabY6fRV+fVOnc7thR4oX /DUrcZNufYqxduGgyI+bUae7yslnEP0TPEACcJhghdaWp+ZNMcxsIjV54kIdsLNNvPFT wvyZJIWy1AimPJpeiL4MHoeWDiCetjrvjrit6Hefa1jWwuieZDgFJXNFJAYEraSfFS1P nTvw==
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=Ei/ujJCKy5TdpKFh0IPHi/P/TbA2VnbxBnWzcAh5Uh4=; b=gKgbiX33lXbHuGycEMA+6PIAyGzLrzcyROx9f52eqT/+aiFFznXBYV1MLBsvgCRnln 3Sm2mjto8iqyUvHDG5qaBp6nPnp8W2F4vS4YQwnS3MlCI7DpqimnQJPM3Rzl78smDqQx 94HHjWW5XRvevKlSxk2ypfFxMC2gUmIoow5gvwLijSE2oaxCTdOO88AvnXHDyf8MHveG wy+u0huJ72cLkrA38OvBEqLRr7gjUsBn7+/OUJeHZU7xlnwIggMDYOJsr+7H06YhsC2w PakpTDMRw2M9ggf4YzMjUhGlyHy0GctjYOFazJfg0sehLbirMUe0RwnghY53Z6XumZoJ V7Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3UoegFb7n0I1UYguDfMwqNyxGMlrx9zcAA3AJ21gj7GRBWEAOi /zdQUBpILjTOtAGsLwpPK6y3H7hQgVcMduKZfMaOUF8X
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKXnpMaZvMBJkYpMR6A3OS5oxMeV91H0PNWhg8vvCpijsCW3CcDe+W3HUmt2RRYOBUKU+ReA29SZZdBPD/N28w=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4cc:: with SMTP id r12mr6152908ljm.50.1585249277615; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <55D8F3C6-7F2A-4382-AFFD-B8A1D7C14992@akamai.com> <28066.1585242203@localhost> <2118E3F9-03DE-4663-B648-7BC95AFEDFC1@akamai.com> <5330FB2F-C6C5-4C70-B917-EFB8A4E2E9D5@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <5330FB2F-C6C5-4C70-B917-EFB8A4E2E9D5@episteme.net>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:00:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dpFQzM8e0LKujUFVuyUi4AnjFqaUWMrBADcggb2Oym=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000012a3ad05a1c69c83"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fO9-D7LkT4bgWE4KqzgmjYf8PQs>
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:01:35 -0000

Hi, Pete,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:30 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:

> On 26 Mar 2020, at 12:54, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> >>   I didn't understand your words, but subsequent emails make me think
> >> you are
> >     saying:
> >             107 occured.
> >             People who signed bluesheets on more than one day
> > attended.
> >
> > Mostly.  I want to get the largest pool of candidates.
> >
> > So 107 is a Heisenberg meeting.
> >       People who signed the etherpad on more than one day get to count
> 107
> > in 3 of 5.
> >       People who did not, get counted from 102-106 for their 3 of 5.
> >
> > I realize that defining a Heisenmeeting would probably make some
> > people uncomfortable.  But I view it as just accepting the reality.
>
> If we really want the largest pool of candidates, I don't think we have
> to be so cute; just make it 3 of 6 for the 2020-2021 NomCom only and
> define "attendance" for IETF 107. Bob Hinden convinced me that since 107
> had so few sessions, it's not useful to just treat it as a normal
> meeting, and 3 of 6 solves that issue. We seem to have some momentum
> toward dealing with remote participation generally, so really the only
> NomCom for which we have to worry about making rules immediately is the
> 2020-2021 NomCom. So let's just write a soon-to-be-obsolete BCP that
> says:
>
> A. IETF 107 became a remote meeting at the last minute and therefore had
> minimal sessions scheduled and less-than-average attendance.
>
> B. For the 2020-2021 NomCom, we don't want the above fact to interfere
> with NomCom eligibility.
>
> C. Therefore, with regard to the 2020-2021 NomCom selection, IETF 107
> hereby qualifies as an "IETF meeting" for purposes of Volunteer
> Qualification in RFC 8713 Section 4.14.
>
> D. For purposes of Volunteer Qualification in RFC 8713 Section 4.14,
> "attended" and "attendance" at IETF 107 is defined as having one's name
> on the Etherpad attendance list or being in the recorded Webex
> participant list of any X sessions held remotely at IETF 107.
> [Personally, I couldn't care less what X is; any X>=1 is fine with me.]
>
> E. With regard to the 2020-2021 NomCom selection, in the Volunteer
> Qualification of RFC 8713 Section 4.14 is three out of the last six
> meetings instead of three out of the last five. As in RFC 8713 Section
> 4.14, the six meetings are the six most recent meetings that ended prior
> to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom volunteers was
> submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
>

That sounds right to me.

There is a bit more cleanup to do - we also need to make sure IETF 107
counted as the First Meeting of 2020, in the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-1 sense, because we seated a
whole bunch of new leadership yesterday, in the middle of what Rich Salz is
reasonably calling a Heisenmeeting.

But, yes, this, as long as we have a complete checklist of what needs to be
redefined in 2020.

Best,

Spencer


> Then we clean things up with a proper BCP that defines eligibility for
> remote participants, and obsolete the above.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
> All connections to the world are tenuous at best
>
>