On 26-Mar-20 12:54, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Err on the side of including people. Discount 107 for everyone. BUT include it for those who signed bluesheets on more than one day.
I think that actually amounts to varying the rule to 3/6, i.e. 102-107 would all be considered.
I certainly consider this worth discussing, although I don't see why you say "bluesheets on more than one day" rather than "more than one bluesheet." With such a reduced agenda, it could easily happen that a person only considered one day of interest. (Especially with many people having to deal with the domestic chaos of a lockdown. I heard dogs and I heard kids during today's sessions.)
However, I'm concerned about the implications of potentially contravening BCP10. It's a process BCP and we build a chain of authority for those by having the ISOC Board take note of them. And BCP10 is unambiguous in stating:
(a) That various things happen related to the First IETF each year.
(b) That eligibility requires 3/5 attendance at the moment of NomCom selection, which normally means that the 5th of the 5 qualifying meetings is the First IETF of the year.
Because of (a), it seems to me that the IESG needs to formally assert that this week *is* the First IETF of 2020, and ask the ISOC Board to take note.
If you then want to make virtual attendance this week qualify, the IESG would also need to assert the ad hoc definition of attendance, and also ask the ISOC Board to take note.
If you wanted to include 102 in the qualifying meetings, the same applies, IMHO.
I'm not sure which approach is best, but I am sure about it needing a formal statement from the IESG which the ISOC Board is informed about.
(And before anyone asks, I do mean the ISOC Board. IETF LLC is not in this particular loop, since it concerns the IETF process, not its administration.)
Regards
Brian
