Works for me. Regards Brian Carpenter On 01-Apr-20 08:36, Barry Leiba 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*? > > That question is not asking what you *prefer*; I've read all of those, > and I am still collecting that input further. But for the purpose of > this question, does anyone think that outcome is so bad that you can't > accept it? If you can live with it, there's no need to respond. Just > let me know if you can't. > > Barry > > . >
