BTW, I received an email from the Nomcom chair a few days ago, saying that I had selected “willing to serve on the NomCom” on the registration form for a past IETF meeting, so I suspect we may see a larger set of volunteers. Or at least one larger, because I said “yes” :-) Bob > On Jun 27, 2021, at 3:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The exact wording of Path 1 in RFC8989 is: > > "Attendance is as determined by the record keeping of the Secretariat for > in-person meetings and is based on being a registered person who logged in for at least one session of an online IETF meeting." > > But perhaps you qualified under Path 2 or 3? > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 28-Jun-21 08:53, Larry Masinter wrote: >> Unfortunately, after reviewing RFC 8989, I think there may be an issue with my qualifications. >> >> At the 110 meeting, although I was registered (and got the T-shirt, thank you) I was unable to attend any working group meeting or plenary session. (Mainly time-zone issues). >> >> I did try gather.town but didn’t find anyone to talk to. >> >> >> >> Personally, I liked the idea of being on the nomcom after so many years, but perhaps reviewing actual participation (even just asking each volunteer to assert actual participation) might bring the process closer to its intent. >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
