Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 14 March 2020 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 1EAD73A0B79; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 Vvvq2Q2-33bl; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EEB3A0C87; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB4A38980; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145E64F3; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:07:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
reply-to: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
In-Reply-To: <6956707A-DD1F-4033-8DAA-B173FEF73CA4@gmail.com>
References: <E1C8005A-04B2-495F-ACD9-C268D5FCAD5F@vigilsec.com> <6956707A-DD1F-4033-8DAA-B173FEF73CA4@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:07:38 -0400
Message-ID: <21363.1584216458@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q3OcGr4EBx3tSLdSkJsIWaAH22s>
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: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 20:07:54 -0000

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
    > That ignores one of the reasons for requiring attendance which is to
    > better know the IETF and hence to have the context for decisions.

    > I would prefer that the requirement to have actually attended three
    > meetings is retained.

My proposal from years ago is that the current rules remain as criteria for
*becoming* eligible.

The difference is that the criteria for *remaining* eligible is lowered.

If we can agree to this structure, then we can proceed forward to determine
(separately) what changes we might make to that criteria.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-