Barry, > On Mar 13, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. My preference is to count remote attendance at the plenary as having attended the meeting for NomCom eligibility. That’s where, I assume, the leadership transition is going to be happening as well as other IETF organizational issues will be presented. I think this is better than the other alternatives. Bob > > 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 >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
