Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 13 March 2020 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 005CD3A0E2C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 jklxiIBxekZo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72A163A0E2B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB79548438; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:22:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 14EC4440040; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:22:55 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:22:55 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Message-ID: <20200313162255.GB8656@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pWUv83sn_z6H9q9yOoDiURn1F2E>
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 16:23:03 -0000

+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.

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.