Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 26 March 2020 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E885B3A0904 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTZ02gDoYoHz for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A13163A08FA for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x1so1607545plm.4 for <>; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FFkB9hgzDzhJawDNjmGS0ahtLkhclhxvkBflvbQBBbs=; b=fB2ULriCP4dq3eDVSa2qbq1IunQUZdexdTZ+tZB/nkaXQwvKLbnev3eAam3XKv6r7W 7lxHlF7QImBNfIX5e9m697a/xjVQDtkOAQp0oLLAw735rFCppY6LaVB3/zk2IQ0z32WU UX64KnQ5cVDKiAH9Jy/9N4MfzB1ocpfJXdoyzpLFVwJki2ZJI1WDCHQRsQJETAt5FxYm vonHiJngvxP6u0fjthbmO85pn/pyw6h8sN+fcCBYv6nqUxCnZihO/8cKozDF0lGbzscU +VmlW3cOR/j04hPeKs2D3hdH0vT/kMqJPO/Ol+nhfowbKsKi1P70Dkn1BkiaM7RoSHBH iqNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FFkB9hgzDzhJawDNjmGS0ahtLkhclhxvkBflvbQBBbs=; b=dLHxbRw9U+7WaoKJvB9CSV+3scROKCRwpKuoTvQeO01A8os0t19m+xEA1Gxw77TQEC mej8Mr6qYYaW0hXMPQ5QL4wCvMGu/hyX4fVCrcXZKI2thZmgVUdVsBzzTsm4vCOH4nR1 ht3e0mHaBHW1GqsSAnzViBTinA+A7zW4tyLfu11+L6p6arKokM3C4VnBpBm6klvC2Of6 p+ntUs+U2mwcaWw6NgW31rAtapYcwIC/UZ1oUnmC/gHnUYBVsDJeswYGJnRf6PSvF7hH YimX9jEwrxTVbc8DHqakpFUHs2U3E65q7UNWk8BHdw4futyzHp4xm3S8uJnFIohXHeiw fbnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3q0IUzaF9SCiWOMLGvTRAsuAcf31adHBRTvPRZ8YVyYk45ScXY MrIT8r9413QkODTvvbi0r8gp7jUv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuQB2vLishAFCyrYqQxZ4CQPiuVmg+ZlSTSXuvckWdb4nSWqNNC8+bmDxFMfFVK29QGhhgyhQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7201:: with SMTP id ba1mr6380111plb.198.1585192228925; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id i20sm454389pfd.89.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107
To: "Salz, Rich" <>, IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: Barry Leiba <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:10:23 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 03:10:31 -0000

On 26-Mar-20 12:54, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for everyone.  BUT include it for those who signed bluesheets on more than one day.

I think that actually amounts to varying the rule to 3/6, i.e. 102-107 would all be considered.

I certainly consider this worth discussing, although I don't see why you say "bluesheets on more than one day" rather than "more than one bluesheet." With such a reduced agenda, it could easily happen that a person only considered one day of interest. (Especially with many people having to deal with the domestic chaos of a lockdown. I heard dogs and I heard kids during today's sessions.)

However, I'm concerned about the implications of potentially contravening BCP10. It's a process BCP and we build a chain of authority for those by having the ISOC Board take note of them. And BCP10 is unambiguous in stating:
(a) That various things happen related to the First IETF each year.
(b) That eligibility requires 3/5 attendance at the moment of NomCom selection, which normally means that the 5th of the 5 qualifying meetings is the First IETF of the year.

Because of (a), it seems to me that the IESG needs to formally assert that this week *is* the First IETF of 2020, and ask the ISOC Board to take note.

If you then want to make virtual attendance this week qualify, the IESG would also need to assert the ad hoc definition of attendance, and also ask the ISOC Board to take note.

If you wanted to include 102 in the qualifying meetings, the same applies, IMHO.

I'm not sure which approach is best, but I am sure about it needing a formal statement from the IESG which the ISOC Board is informed about.

(And before anyone asks, I do mean the ISOC Board. IETF LLC is not in this particular loop, since it concerns the IETF process, not its administration.)