Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 13 March 2020 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 DC9383A0882 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 7do0XHH2liyG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA433A0853 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.113] (p548DCD70.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.205.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48f7T34HVZz10Kj; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:32:39 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:32:39 +0100
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 605802758.939214-38ff19e31c20e3097456aa1e8d23e59f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6FA78BB5-3ADA-474D-9B2B-09A138AFBD9E@tzi.org>
References: <CALaySJ+kFVXrVAkYLaO6MaPqDA29MzXhVFcxG0c6hZcBs-LqnQ@mail.gmail.com> <E6FB26B505C8B7952BB81CEA@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wD1-os8Y94qvhkMkQ_P8GEvnBes>
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 14:32:43 -0000

On 2020-03-13, at 15:21, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> Since,
> formally, IETF 107 is going ahead as virtual, why not count
> virtual attendance as "attendance”.

(That was pretty much what I was trying to say.)
I.e., for each IETF, the “most engaged” version of attending substitutes for physical attendance, if the latter is not available.

Advantage: We don’t work on outdated data
Disadvantage: It’s easier to fake
(But that’s just one out of 3.)

Grüße, Carsten