Dear IESG: My preference would to count everyone as having attended IETF 107. The me, this is the most fair approach to a person that is just getting involved in the IETF. Russ > On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of > how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility. > This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed > between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure > out what to do. > > For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to > be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC > 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings. > Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the > following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105 > (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had > been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107. An > occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become > eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended > 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107. > > The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107 > should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility? While we have > time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general > matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107 > now, before this year’s NomCom is formed. > > One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom > eligibility. The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103, > and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be > eligible this year. > > Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has > attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility. There, the last five > would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for > anyone who volunteers for the NomCom. > > Perhaps there are other workable options. Please let us know what you > think by responding to this message thread. And to be absolutely > clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead > time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only. Any longer-term > decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more > formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the > near future. > > Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this. > > Barry, for the IESG >
