> Noting Spencer's comment about the risk of a process appeal, 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 think we can, as I think the intent of the BCP is clear in that it refers to in-person meetings. I think a process change is necessary to deal with virtual meetings, but I see no issue as things stand. In addition to that, I think we have latitude to interpret the BCPs in exceptional circumstances, which this is, and I'm quite confident that the ISOC BoT would uphold that if it came to them. We have to find a reasonable way to handle what's thrown at us in the short term, while setting up the community to do formal document revisions in the longer term. Barry, individual participant > unless the > IESG, IAB, and ISOC BoT were willing and able to expedite appeal > processing and carry it out more rapidly than has ever been the > case in the past We have actually handled some appeals quickly, and, be assured that the IESG, at least, is committed to working as quickly as possible to do what it can to get this year's NomCom seated and operational on schedule. Barry, ART AD
