Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Sat, 14 March 2020 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 369213A10CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:01:46 -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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 8qV3dxOBagjN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (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 70A9E3A09EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id t13so6128805wmi.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=a53OYozm3CnbccjtHU7SSlubXsKVsluFZ3inWyLIBE8=; b=uUeWVBjy6utw/X1BxTvOd2+fvF5H2108tZn58i9QEhKcu3eAzF+vJArFJJS5a+jwxz XIrujXevIXSArPznz9Vi4cAAcZDKwdV2ZCJCHsYjb3Ys6KwYe+L51+9YOyQdrfZWwkZh cAHRsBSN4lZkb5t5cWfV3i5Vsgej6XOQ/p9S3Vr09zp3neYG449pJ8lkflruUFDJtx0R ZgRPS8wHnRaGYcEkN39/zTukO8wODK0FPioiIMUBn3I5q2ItVUyn/nn8XywzMxMt0g/I DgnFcaKiACumWJekW4gMAs8+PMv3Q8rgLF09wQ89nVtJftceDWTx3DmXhrbMLLt1KPY8 Lt1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=a53OYozm3CnbccjtHU7SSlubXsKVsluFZ3inWyLIBE8=; b=sIvJhHScrLYWlP/N74z68u3Gd9PoelscSPr49buTd3a/jPxV0olxfpkrj8hVE98s9y rm5l/OT6dCqZoJIevLqa9cv5o3wF4mo9DvC0UHJuwLIbh8tKqvaXOblEVj50cnUwm0YS +JUVGYNzoq/qJazMDyhPiqBW5svLayWqJv3lQ2txs63PuOOywIj6MBAM6sJbo+7Bcoya FjP0oRkGyN47e6t4Ivt5uJsXNCwvhr04d8QJyw+O+AH0WNl+Z4rQJyLFjnOa99arim+s NobKPawkxQHSIpH3jSvOi/B3qpbcxEAtc47P9z8lb6+WWC+nSM1pnZH4E8QZU4y6vJ39 +z3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2MYzxxuU7uMvXpm+/JP1e2RDgQp8ZgMvVaFTP2cCRfE/9aXBna ufHCuo5y52E5VAzWQPklmmBKa4Ts
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vtyr5GtblUX4qNmDFPtk6996KKX9FSiuP2WDjka?= =?utf-8?q?tdWDyQmuEraV27mAlKImuWUzkTrnHJQ5mg=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7ed0:: with SMTP id z199mr15740799wmc.52.1584169297214; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a00:23a8:4140:0:a0d1:4da8:f2a9:a3ae? ([2a00:23a8:4140:0:a0d1:4da8:f2a9:a3ae]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h10sm9028015wrb.24.2020.03.14.00.01.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Mar 2020 00:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:01:35 +0000
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <6956707A-DD1F-4033-8DAA-B173FEF73CA4@gmail.com>
References: <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gQx7MSA4HJegx88O9Agz8zvPvA0>
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:01:46 -0000

Russ,

That ignores one of the reasons for requiring attendance which is to better know the IETF and hence to have the context for decisions.

I would prefer that the requirement to have actually attended three meetings is retained.

Stewart

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Mar 2020, at 13:55, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear IESG:
> 
> My preference would to count everyone as having attended IETF 107.  The me, this is the most fair approach to a person that is just getting involved in the IETF.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of
>> how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
>> This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed
>> between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure
>> out what to do.
>> 
>> For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to
>> be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
>> 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
>> Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the
>> following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105
>> (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had
>> been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An
>> occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become
>> eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended
>> 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.
>> 
>> The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107
>> should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have
>> time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general
>> matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107
>> now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you
>> think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
>> clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead
>> time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term
>> decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more
>> formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the
>> near future.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this.
>> 
>> Barry, for the IESG
>> 
>