On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While we are sorting this out, and whether we publish an Internet
draft or not, I would like to know this:
As I (Barry, not the IESG as a whole) currently read the rough
consensus, considering what people have said the reasons you all have
given, and the discussion of those reasons, I see things falling
toward option 1. Specifically, looking at RFC 8713, Section 4.14, FOR
THIS NOMCOM CYCLE ONLY and SETTING NO PRECEDENT, I would replace the
first two paragraphs this way:
Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
the last five in-person IETF meetings in order to volunteer.
The five meetings are the five most recent in-person meetings that
ended prior to the date on which the solicitation for NomCom
volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community.
For the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.
The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
that outcome*?
Yes, I can live with this outcome. It allows the organization to get down to business and keeps the intent of the documented process sufficient enough (under the circumstances).
regards,
Victor K
