Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Barry,

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet
> draft or not, I would like to know this:
>
> As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough
> consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have
> given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling
> toward option 1.  Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR
> THIS NOMCOM CYCLE ONLY and SETTING NO PRECEDENT, I would replace the
> first two paragraphs this way:
>
>    Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
>    the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
>
>    The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
>    ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
>    volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
>    For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
>    IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.
>

Bike, meet shed.

I'd suggest this for the last sentence:

   Because no IETF 107 in-person was held, for the 2020-2021 Nominating
Committee those five meetings are
   IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.


> The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
> that outcome*?
>

I could live with that, either with or without my suggested text, of course.

Best,

Spencer


> That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those,
> and I am still collecting that input further.  But for the purpose of
> this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't
> accept it?  If you can live with it, there's no need to respond.  Just
> let me know if you can't.
>
> Barry
>
>