Hi.
I've done a final (i.e., last day of Last Call) review of this
document and skimmed through the comments since the Last Call
started. I think part of it is a bit of a fiction: if at least
some of IETF 111 - 113 are nominally f2f [1], I believe that the
controversy about whether to include remote participants
mentioned in Section 4.1 and provided for in Section 2, will be
sufficiently active to require some considerable rewriting and
IETF Last Call, not just an IESG statement after a presumably
harmonious discussion. However, I think that question can
safely be left to the discussions after the 2021-2022 Nomcom is
seated. Hence I think the document should probably be approved
as-is rather than taking up more time now, allowing the
community to most forward either either substantive work or the
next procedural food-fight.
john
[1] "Nominally" because, like many others, I believe that, when
we resume f2f meetings, there will be a relatively slow ramp-up
of attendance with many of those who were participating in
person prior to COVID-19 remaining remote for several meetings.
--On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 07:43 -0800 The IESG
<iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
> to consider the following document: - 'Additional Criteria for
> Nominating Committee Eligibility'
> <draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-08.txt> as Experimental
> RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final comments on this action. Please send
> substantive comments to the last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists
> by 2020-12-30. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
> iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
