Barry, I read the draft and I support it. One nit: Should it say that it updates BCP10? Bob d > On Apr 2, 2020, at 7:03 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has listened to the discussion and has reconsidered. We have > posted an Internet draft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/ > > Murray will be the shepherding AD, and will request a four-week last > call later today, to end on 30 April, the deadline we had set for > comments. The following week (7 May) will have an IESG telechat, and > we would expect to have the document on that telechat agenda for > approval. > > The substantive bit in the document is as I described in the message below. > > Barry, for the IESG > > 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*? >> >> 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 >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
