Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 26 March 2020 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 5943B3A0876 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 wuMuEbJWl2sv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B1563A0C8D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 04:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw12.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.12]) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C789A43546C88 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 05:41:02 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id HQsgjtMylN8ArHQsgjxWBF; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 05:41:02 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=KvFjJ1eN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10:nop_ipv6 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10:nop_charset_1 a=SS2py6AdgQ4A:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Vy_oeq2dmq0A:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=voZKSeMjAAAA:8 a=8qSefF8wAAAA:8 a=nbi1LO9kAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=qltB0XMty0T4c-l-QSsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10:nop_charset_2 a=9_PflfxPP4jfUBPIDKbT:22 a=gy0usrHT_YHxg8cEKwfj:22 a=gagx6YM4nTsp0Crtwc_J:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=UfKEvZXPidJT/+WC32/h4JhcV38t3szldZtne85bdaw=; b=GZd0WgmQIwXW2E0A8azNGe3HIO jRJCMNyTwYm+eR6BbhEI5VrpKh9Zbvq/p+XmTNJzvTPTjpXGnM3+kUqRmG5F4A8PEqLGo8zsJKCnf 3gKyuTjyQtmm7pY2/D/NuNYKm;
Received: from [172.58.187.125] (port=26936 helo=[IPV6:2607:fb90:1365:62a0:0:f:98b3:db01]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1jHQsg-003aJc-Eb; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 05:41:02 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:41:00 -0400
Message-ID: <17116a53ce0.277b.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAhfFLYwzqw6Qch3BpuMvqjZPzFJ5o1iTOwR+yqH8j-Aw@mail.gmail.com> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.23.0-1556 (build: 102300002)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 172.58.187.125
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1jHQsg-003aJc-Eb
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([IPV6:2607:fb90:1365:62a0:0:f:98b3:db01]) [172.58.187.125]:26936
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ia3MnKiUhZBbi87q5DYjqdEaVpY>
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 11:41:15 -0000

+1


----------
On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Barry
>
> Ignore 107 entirely; treat 102 to 106 as the qualifying meetings.
>
> Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider virtual 
> qualification but that is for a future discussion.  107 has had too many 
> uncertainties and changes on the part of all parties to be considered.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> Sent: 25/03/2020 23:14:00
>
>
> ---
> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
>
> If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment
> here, in this thread on <ietf@ietf.org>rg>, by 30 April 2020.
>
> Thanks,
> Barry, for the IESG
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 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
>>
>
>