Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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 72D713A0C7C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rYIQAbhrC6JO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59B193A0C6A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id 6so12637268wre.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=JMnDUJfljjifXUs0ZT2ov8/ZQZLgWiT1ihEnYa3zQZY=; b=H5UePmI1GdcUwicQLceuvvh5Pr23bZgJe0SzaclC60EYTndNOiLQ8IpqQa5Ijhxb+H QDJf7p3lDbn0ZYf73O0DSotFCURxBbBDMSdD7TgXdvvVZsFopOlU7MZ+gW9OnHaTklvs c4p/PtaJs1p8whwY6Jio8J2s+yZveVDGI17bFvSSvi5lXhM7GmR5XSBeCE5IoCbCFxyX ebAJcRsTnU8ICIO8XuWzJ0Kwq+Rb9TPn01QX8Tn3SSl+ycijKQrhL5KRvgBjtAJ57qj2 60QQB5BZVvm5eucOPtYeD87hLe2ULDKo4xweDGS36/Kjh350UlZXy2ZXTPRTqltgl9Xq 2IgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=JMnDUJfljjifXUs0ZT2ov8/ZQZLgWiT1ihEnYa3zQZY=; b=lYnhRTYJ+wTJWvqGH1zVRF8vdq7IcgjBMowAfKhYuwjAn5PbojpvFJS06bq6lsl8/y 5MQNHRogABU4tN8iFBLJZnRci8QEqDjEZJ41XARckGYceP5pBb1TwjOwvE5RP3H3gUN/ aX+8Ydg5bvPJWyjkVGL36n5J+MjMM6jn3jAd8Wd2ptk6W7OzxnUmFD2oo4nCXKpunGyN Q3opS8wzlvNH63f71FeNYkqpvHtF0AKDJ0s84CM/aJO+moiV09G6VDQXPJoctrVnzVhd mqQ3RLwP7TVVgtJDHNRU/WRxys75gqqgzg3ZPnxYuL7zuI84mCek0op1895bLE+JisLf g1LA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1etXJPpZLecAv9HqyXdUocC+e0b3olgLnlCZgNq6yphZQTeooa kGdbool5JewwYOLi2hGagmY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vskKJRcU88Mw6f/Z82pJq9qO2Hlnuzr3wkVm76z?= =?utf-8?q?D4mqZjO+9EBUD16xIVeY4+hi74X8HvYPrQ=3D=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6287:: with SMTP id k7mr7847594wru.195.1584113606609; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x16sm14869494wrg.44.2020.03.13.08.33.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <DCD05465-75F2-40AB-835F-CFED376EB4FA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FD410FCC-AC72-4C91-87F6-EA97AA490B93"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:33:21 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJVhrY2YdzW4T1-51Lm-3VxKpzdu2=Hq+9Gdc0vVbi=aA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB> <CALaySJJVhrY2YdzW4T1-51Lm-3VxKpzdu2=Hq+9Gdc0vVbi=aA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tnRsfqqPrulvQN4JI5DDRQkiOHo>
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 15:33:32 -0000

Barry,

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 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 <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
>> <barryleiba@computer.org> 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
>> 
>