IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Fri, 13 March 2020 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.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 BEA253A0F5B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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=open-xchange.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 zNBwO8EcqvDX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA743A0F62 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 584D76A308; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:59:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1584118759; bh=ahmzcGct9YP80iAJXRO9FnfCU6CSpaZ8gqQf+fVFnrM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=S00JSQI4KOnemhcSIgsGR0eoZhcMhLA51MG9FbCscKo/nrbeSHgsKqASulCfI818E cwAA55bgR+bjfgWY1S8SXv9RquLUE1Et3CPVV/RW5X+OfbHHWLEAO/TcdYDF+akiJ0 c3wbAdY7PLYyFJO5sqBTkCIgUVfMAbOBxLcUS6XoXjy6K1Idc6MVcQuCIbjMAtSKcU gVIuwzPoyXPv7+/i9kGtS2tS202rbLrE71duJV2IbrO6BL5BY9AcGRDidwVyBkc1+n soFzbtt/UEGxEouBLKORMXd0MqrXKPESIEZUV3GG0zJQm2x3pQVow1XZvTExItCtrM omLNJ9wV2FbOw==
Received: from appsuite-dev-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-dev-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AE623C0310; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:59:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:59:18 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2023085161.538.1584118759208@appsuite-dev-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCD05465-75F2-40AB-835F-CFED376EB4FA@gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB> <CALaySJJVhrY2YdzW4T1-51Lm-3VxKpzdu2=Hq+9Gdc0vVbi=aA@mail.gmail.com> <DCD05465-75F2-40AB-835F-CFED376EB4FA@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.4-Rev0
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vLPr0pthmVCzecT1vltgTBJ2IEs>
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 16:59:33 -0000


> Il 13/03/2020 16:33 Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> 
> My preference is to count remote attendance at the plenary as having attended the meeting for NomCom eligibility.  

I don't see how you can replace "attending at least some meetings over a week in person" with a one-off remote attendance, which you might have to fail for a number of good reasons. Also, that would disadvantage people for which the plenary will be at ungodly hours (i.e. everyone in Europe, Africa, Middle East, India and Central Asia).

If we want to keep 107 in the span, the best and most literal substitution IMHO would be to count as in-person attendee anyone who had at any time validly registered for in-person attendance, even if they had cancelled before the general cancellation. However, I guess there are others (no idea how many) who would have registered at the last minute, should all this mess not have happened.

Alternatively, let's just consider 102-106, though that is a bit unfair to newcomers.

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email