I agree with Job, Even if we could hold IETF 108 as planned, I would expect a large number of remote attendees just because people might still be wary of travel. The time has come to determine a criteria for including remote attendees for NOMCOM eligibility. The existing criteria is in-person attendance for at least one day. My personal preference for the new criteria would be in-person or remote participation in one or more working group/BOF sessions and/or the plenary, as determined by electronic blue sheets or by logging in to the conferencing system. That's just a suggestion, I'm certainly open to other suggestions for the new criteria.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:44 PM Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:22:55PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:43:34AM -0400, Barry Leiba 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.
>
> +1
>
> An exhaustive mathematical analysis performed by staring at the two
> option paragraps for 5 seconds each has made me come up with the
> following preference.
As John, Randy, and others have noted in this thread - I think we in
this discussion context simply assume IETF 108 will also be all remote.
And in that potential future, if from a NOMCOM eligibility perspective
both IETF 107 and 108 are 'ignored', where does that leave us?
I think that if IETF 107 is to take place in some remote shape or
virtual form, it should be possible to 'attend', and list of these
attendees should somehow contribute towards eligibility for the NOMCOM.
Kind regards,
Job
