Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I think that IETF107 should be counted as a remote meeting, therefore not
valid in the current rules for eligibility.
This is exactly how the IETF has treated remote attendees for the past twenty
years. If there is interest in fixing that, I have a number of proposals.
> 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.
Nope.
> 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.
Nope.
I doubt missing one meeting will have a significant impact on the eligibility
of very many.
{now, I might read the long thread I see attached}
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
