RE: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

[Gabriel Montenegro <[e-mail]>]

Yes, we're adding some from IETF 107, unfortunately, not as many as we would've liked. That list will be published tomorrow.

These are folks who expressed willingness to volunteer in the IETF 107 registration and who have confirmed such willingness for the current NomCom.

Here's some further info about this practice, which I've inherited from the past NomComs:

NomComs have added names to the initial list published within the challenge period and upon confirming with folks who had expressed willingness to volunteer (per past IETF registrations). We are doing that right now based on data from IETF 107 (the only recent IETF registration where such willingness to volunteer was recorded).

Here's a recap of the number of registrations as the numbers grew during the challenge period. All this is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/ann/

NomCom year	First List size	2nd List size	3rd List size	4th list size
2019	149 	178 (adding volunteers from IETF 100-104)	178 (tweaks, affiliation changes, etc)	177 (more tweaks) end of challenge period
2020	160 (including IETF 107 volunteers)	143 (minus some from IETF 107 + one from IETF 108)	Not applicable	Not applicable
2021	112	? (adding volunteers from IETF 107 and other tweaks) - to be published on June 30th		

Thanks,

Gabriel
Ps - sorry for the lack of formatting for the "table" above, but I didn't want to impose HTML formatting on this running thread.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2021 19:00
> To: IETF <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom
> 
> BTW, I received an email from the Nomcom chair a few days ago, saying that I
> had selected “willing to serve on the NomCom” on the registration form for a
> past IETF meeting,  so I suspect we may see a larger set of volunteers.   Or at
> least one larger, because I said “yes” :-)
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> > On Jun 27, 2021, at 3:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The exact wording of Path 1 in RFC8989 is:
> >
> > "Attendance is as determined by the record keeping of the Secretariat
> > for in-person meetings and is based on being a registered person who logged
> in for at least one session of an online IETF meeting."
> >
> > But perhaps you qualified under Path 2 or 3?
> >
> > Regards
> >   Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 28-Jun-21 08:53, Larry Masinter wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, after reviewing RFC 8989, I think there may be an issue with
> my qualifications.
> >>
> >> At the 110 meeting, although I was registered (and got the T-shirt, thank
> you) I was unable to attend any working group meeting or plenary session.
> (Mainly time-zone issues).
> >>
> >> I did try gather.town but didn’t find anyone to talk to.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Personally, I liked the idea of being on the nomcom after so many years, but
> perhaps reviewing actual participation (even just asking each volunteer to
> assert actual participation) might bring the process closer to its intent.
> >>
> >