Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 6068D3A077A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:54:49 -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 FaFxAKd3oCkx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C922D3A0778 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EDF300B40 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:54:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id z7nM4hZ1dE76 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6828300A20 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:54:45 -0400
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jHCWD6LU4azu-TOE9TvColh-4jQ>
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 13:54:49 -0000

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 <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
>