Hi, Barry,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 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.
Bike, meet shed.
I'd suggest this for the last sentence:
Because no IETF 107 in-person was held, for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee those five meetings are
IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.
IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106.
The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
that outcome*?
I could live with that, either with or without my suggested text, of course.
Best,
Spencer
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
