Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Dear IESG:

My preference would to count everyone as having attended IETF 107.  The me, this is the most fair approach to a person that is just getting involved in the IETF.

Russ


> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:43 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
>