Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 13 March 2020 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 71F2C3A12E9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.463, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 EDn1z1aC1MfB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f43.google.com (mail-io1-f43.google.com [209.85.166.43]) (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 998383A12E3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f43.google.com with SMTP id m25so11315875ioo.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=YoTrLOJXdKbkbdz/hn7HwIuBROIQkjsmtkGQtNNTVsw=; b=LtgN6Qu2FjPULVb/KzDn4weCvvSncuMsAWHbPTm28RfHIQUpT7UIKvO0f8iP6jVFzp +8sjxfaWt1fZ6vo17Z8UorbjZEmNG0kcOjmOTKS4hjVJc5QQazi8qQ2670Rd33lHoYzP xevpkNoe34MrYxUblAJKFouf3KjEbpbvIixhC5b90e5AEvFDcL1Tgzw/ZgxVuivsa5qf +VZ3EocVpmRrA7OYgJ6wH5lLxYXBfz2jooVzjlWDq+ph2W2ODTLu8g/8HFANvk73lYur ucRrbRu/BQQaTb7htek54p7sNrFGjxqOkw4xvNvrSssplgYNGrIVyLkpiv9aGa9byzvA eXDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ328tk5Ve+C4sztvn371rGmOvtlb1TBP9qji/uuAV0Mp1U3mvCt ue/SQxklPqJiVZeuUzYOml+nMpqo3Ek8aATDZFPNpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vsVP7QUw12dpvi/q3P0N0IFbTTxKkEex/74F5cJ?= =?utf-8?q?7SHYYTKyJXdMwDH6Lx0PuooS9FqGOsUWsxYq/Abj8ZnUoX4=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2b6:: with SMTP id d22mr15730209jaq.59.1584143660344; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200313162255.GB8656@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200313204317.GR21734@vurt.meerval.net> <CAA=duU0jN0y12_HpzzK73BRD+x19ZQn74V=ju2_wwS-RUL_9Yw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0jN0y12_HpzzK73BRD+x19ZQn74V=ju2_wwS-RUL_9Yw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:54:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+r2OrFVbZj=3fTRUapkDkxap2T-p+QzNfaqK4N0c+haQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025ec6505a0c530dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iogIbkbQj5dP2CkKp7Wt3JHrWZc>
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: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 23:54:24 -0000

Just a reminder: for the purpose of THIS discussion, we just need to figure
out what to do for THIS NomCom selection, which will happen before IETF
108.  Of course, that NomCom might have to sort out how to do its work
completely remotely, but that’s its job, not ours.

For the longer term, we need to decide if and how to give NomCom
eligibility for remote participation, but let’s please not try to do that
in THIS discussion.  There will be a GenDispatch session on 23 March, and I
strongly encourage people to get time on the agenda and make a proposal
there for work on that topic.

Barry

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:26 PM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Job, Even if we could hold IETF 108 as planned, I would
> expect a large number of remote attendees just because people might still
> be wary of travel. The time has come to determine a criteria for including
> remote attendees for NOMCOM eligibility. The existing criteria is in-person
> attendance for at least one day. My personal preference for the new
> criteria would be in-person or remote participation in one or more working
> group/BOF sessions and/or the plenary, as determined by electronic blue
> sheets or by logging in to the conferencing system. That's just a
> suggestion, I'm certainly open to other suggestions for the new criteria.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:44 PM Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:22:55PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:43:34AM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > An exhaustive mathematical analysis performed by staring at the two
>> > option paragraps for 5 seconds each has made me come up with the
>> > following preference.
>>
>> As John, Randy, and others have noted in this thread - I think we in
>> this discussion context simply assume IETF 108 will also be all remote.
>> And in that potential future, if from a NOMCOM eligibility perspective
>> both IETF 107 and 108 are 'ignored', where does that leave us?
>>
>> I think that if IETF 107 is to take place in some remote shape or
>> virtual form, it should be possible to 'attend', and list of these
>> attendees should somehow contribute towards eligibility for the NOMCOM.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
>>