Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 15:59 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 1660C3A07B3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 qq7gcvM63h_G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:59:31 -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 E9E0D3A0772 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 08:59:30 -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 1jHUul-00086y-Kk; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:59:27 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:59:21 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <07D3A3304BFEDEE30ED317DB@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <5AB65F13-CE41-47B9-9B81-365621858F14@akamai.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <1UW64HHr2j.1YlDGqDnLsi@pc8xp> <9CED509420B008E8494332F1@PSB> <5AB65F13-CE41-47B9-9B81-365621858F14@akamai.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/izsSV6_deGmPrDqUJKaQWp-EOlQ>
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 15:59:33 -0000


--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 15:44 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
<rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

>> I
>     continue to worry that we can't say "107 was not a
> meeting" for     Nomcom selection purposes and then turn
> around and say "107 was     the First Meeting of the year" for
> Nomcom selection purposes and     the rest of the timeline.  
>   
> I agree.  And it may be that that particular ship has sailed,
> since the new IAB and IESG were introduced via webex last
> night.

That too.  And that could be part of the basis for a process
appeal that questioned the legitimacy of any IESG process vote
because, if 107 was no the first meeting of the year for IESG
purposes, then it would not be clear who should have
participated in the vote and discussion (and, given the amount
of turnover on the IAB, the situation there vis-a-vis any appeal
would be even worse).

Unless one wants to bank on there being no one who is aware of
what is going on (participating actively in the IETF or not)
registering such an appeal, I think that option is OBE.

   john