IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 14 March 2020 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 1767B3A0831 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 RyexlPpjNnPS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A57443A0860 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 07:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jD7t2-00052I-Bl; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:35:36 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:35:29 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <123F0B7D005D08D89DF5194A@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <6956707A-DD1F-4033-8DAA-B173FEF73CA4@gmail.com>
References: <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com> <6956707A-DD1F-4033-8DAA-B173FEF73CA4@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hno84U6zKOsB7g7AeRODD_pRvkY>
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 14:35:58 -0000

Stewart,

I agree strongly.  However, given your comment and those of
Randy and others that we cannot assume a return to "normal"
until IETF 110 (if then), I think we'd better be paying careful
attention to the definition of "attended".  And, while what we
do about that long-term is almost certainly a matter for
eligibility-discuss, we should think through whatever decisions
are made about this specific Nomcom issue to be confident they
don't over-constrain or significantly complicate future
decisions.

best,
   john


--On Saturday, March 14, 2020 07:01 +0000 Stewart Bryant
<stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email