Thanks, John: that's a valid third choice, and I think it could be workable. On the other hand, noting this: > The difficulty with simply ignoring IETF 107 is that, while it > was fairly arbitrary, that "five meeting" rule was intended to > restrict the Nomcom to recent participants, not just those who > have participated. Whether that was the right way to accomplish > that goal or the right formula is part of the longer-term > question, but it seems to me that pushing the formula to what > would effectively a "three of the last six normal meeting > cycles" is not a change we should make lightly. Speaking for myself only and not for the IESG as a whole: as the IESG noted in the message, this is a one-time thing to deal with the imminent formation of this year's NomCom. I would absolutely agree with you about making a lasting change. I have no heartburn at all about making a decision now for this cycle, which decision might be a slight variation on the BCP rules. Barry On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:21 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --On Friday, March 13, 2020 09:43 -0400 Barry Leiba > <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >... > > 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. > > Barry, I suggest adding one other possibility to the list, one I > thought I mentioned in passing to the IESG in another context. > It might be a middle ground between your suggestions. Since, > formally, IETF 107 is going ahead as virtual, why not count > virtual attendance as "attendance". For example, we might say > that someone has attendee if they (i) register as a remote > participant and (ii) attend at least one session (and/or at > least the plenary) by logging in on WebEx for that session. > > That would have the advantage of your second option to require > at least some minimal level of involvement. Of course, someone > could log in on WebEx and then sleep through the session, but > people can come to in-person sessions, sign the blue sheet, and > then sleep through the session too. > > The difficulty with simply ignoring IETF 107 is that, while it > was fairly arbitrary, that "five meeting" rule was intended to > restrict the Nomcom to recent participants, not just those who > have participated. Whether that was the right way to accomplish > that goal or the right formula is part of the longer-term > question, but it seems to me that pushing the formula to what > would effectively a "three of the last six normal meeting > cycles" is not a change we should make lightly. > > best, > john >
