On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not consider the NOMCOM ramifications. If I had, I think it would likely that I would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force. I agree here. > I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but a change to the BCP. Applying such changes retroactively stinks. I disagree here for the reasons I've already posted. So, with such disagreements, someone has to settle it even if there isn't a clear consensus. Pretty much all the bodies who could possibly make this decision have an extremely remote but theoretically real conflict. I have confidence that if there is a clear consensus that day membership should count as attendance towards NOMCOM qualification, the IESG will see that. But I sure don't see such a consensus against the IESG suggestion so I think it is not only correct but that it should stick. Donald > So, I guess I won't have NOMCOM eligible this year (due to the change, assuming I attend the next IETF under a full registration). > > -- Kurt _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf