+1 Thanks, Chris. > On Mar 26, 2020, at 7:45 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > > +1 > > /Loa > > On 26/03/2020 19:41, Lou Berger wrote: >> +1 >> ---------- >> On March 26, 2020 6:27:16 AM "tom petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Barry >>> >>> Ignore 107 entirely; treat 102 to 106 as the qualifying meetings. >>> >>> Going forward, if 108 is cancelled, then we should consider virtual qualification but that is for a future discussion. 107 has had too many uncertainties and changes on the part of all parties to be considered. >>> >>> Tom Petch >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: 25/03/2020 23:14:00 >>> >>> >>> --- >>> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: >>> https://www.oeclassic.com/ >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> If you haven't already weighed in on this, please post your comment >>> here, in this thread on <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, by 30 April 2020. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Barry, for the IESG >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 9:44 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 >>>> >>> >>> > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >
