Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

+1


----------
On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "tom petch" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>, by 30 April 2020.
>
> Thanks,
> Barry, for the IESG
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> 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
>>
>
>