Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, John: that's a valid third choice, and I think it could be workable.
> 
> On the other hand, noting this:
> 
>> The difficulty with simply ignoring IETF 107 is that, while it
>> was fairly arbitrary, that "five meeting" rule was intended to
>> restrict the Nomcom to recent participants, not just those who
>> have participated.  Whether that was the right way to accomplish
>> that goal or the right formula is part of the longer-term
>> question, but it seems to me that pushing the formula to what
>> would effectively a "three of the last six normal meeting
>> cycles" is not a change we should make lightly.
> 
> Speaking for myself only and not for the IESG as a whole: as the IESG
> noted in the message, this is a one-time thing to deal with the
> imminent formation of this year's NomCom.  I would absolutely agree
> with you about making a lasting change.  I have no heartburn at all
> about making a decision now for this cycle, which decision might be a
> slight variation on the BCP rules.

My preference is to count remote attendance at the plenary as having attended the meeting for NomCom eligibility.   That’s where, I assume, the leadership transition is going to be happening as well as other IETF organizational issues will be presented.   I think this is better than the other alternatives.

Bob


> 
> Barry
> 
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:21 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
>> <[e-mail]> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Barry, I suggest adding one other possibility to the list, one I
>> thought I mentioned in passing to the IESG in another context.
>> It might be a middle ground between your suggestions.  Since,
>> formally, IETF 107 is going ahead as virtual, why not count
>> virtual attendance as "attendance".  For example, we might say
>> that someone has attendee if they (i) register as a remote
>> participant and (ii) attend at least one session (and/or at
>> least the plenary) by logging in on WebEx for that session.
>> 
>> That would have the advantage of your second option to require
>> at least some minimal level of involvement.   Of course, someone
>> could log in on WebEx and then sleep through the session, but
>> people can come to in-person sessions, sign the blue sheet, and
>> then sleep through the session too.
>> 
>> The difficulty with simply ignoring IETF 107 is that, while it
>> was fairly arbitrary, that "five meeting" rule was intended to
>> restrict the Nomcom to recent participants, not just those who
>> have participated.  Whether that was the right way to accomplish
>> that goal or the right formula is part of the longer-term
>> question, but it seems to me that pushing the formula to what
>> would effectively a "three of the last six normal meeting
>> cycles" is not a change we should make lightly.
>> 
>>   best,
>>     john
>> 
>