Russ, That ignores one of the reasons for requiring attendance which is to better know the IETF and hence to have the context for decisions. I would prefer that the requirement to have actually attended three meetings is retained. Stewart Sent from my iPad > On 13 Mar 2020, at 13:55, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >> >
