I support ignoring IETF 107 for Nomcom eligibility. That is, eligibility would be 3 out of 106, 105, 104, 103, and 102. If it were only the case that, quite rarely, an isolated IETF meeting could not take place face-to-face, that policy of ignoring the meeting for eligibility seems adequate. But it looks like it may be 2 or more IETF meetings in a row, so some better long term solution is called for. I should perhaps also mention my opposition to the belief that many seem to have that bigger and bigger eligibility pools for nomcom volunteers are always better as long as they have some vague connection to the IETF. In my opinion the nomcom worked fine in its early days when the pool was commonly in the 40's. These days it is almost always over 100 people, which is plenty. The most important goal of the nomcom is to select good officials for IETF so it is also important that the people selected be willing to put in the time and are reasonably familiar with the IETF. And, to avoid excessive inertia, you have to bar current holders of the offices being selected from voting membership. (One thing no one has mentioned in this thread is the relationship to IETF finances. Isn't the IETF partly funded by meeting registration fees? If virtual IETF meetings become more common, there should be a means of charging at least some remote participants. (Just to give an example, I'd favor free jabber access and audio stream listening but a significant registration fee (like 1/3 of the attendee fee) to be able to speak remotely or to speak and be seen (meetecho). I'd be much more comfortable with having people who remotely participant and pay that remote registration fee having that count towards nomcom eligibility...)) Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:16 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > > >
