--On Thursday, March 26, 2020 15:44 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I > continue to worry that we can't say "107 was not a > meeting" for Nomcom selection purposes and then turn > around and say "107 was the First Meeting of the year" for > Nomcom selection purposes and the rest of the timeline. > > I agree. And it may be that that particular ship has sailed, > since the new IAB and IESG were introduced via webex last > night. That too. And that could be part of the basis for a process appeal that questioned the legitimacy of any IESG process vote because, if 107 was no the first meeting of the year for IESG purposes, then it would not be clear who should have participated in the vote and discussion (and, given the amount of turnover on the IAB, the situation there vis-a-vis any appeal would be even worse). Unless one wants to bank on there being no one who is aware of what is going on (participating actively in the IETF or not) registering such an appeal, I think that option is OBE. john
