On 4/2/2020 2:31 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Hi, Adrian, and thanks for the response.
If we have to form a recall committee in the period before we have worked
out a long-term solution, I presume the same rules will apply. I think it
would be wise to fill this hole now because if we need it (which we won't)
then we'll need to sort it out in a real hurry.
Given that the recall process in BCP 10 explicitly refers to the
NomCom eligibility and process, I think that what's important is to be
clear that the scope of this document does include anything that's
tied to that process. So how about this instead?:
Abstract
OLD
This document only affects the seating of the
2020-2021 NomCom, and does not set a precedent for the future.
NEW
This document only affects the seating of the
2020-2021 NomCom and any rules that relate to the
NomCom process before IETF 108, and does not set a
precedent for the future.
END
Section 1
OLD
The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed
between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who
can serve on that NomCom needs clarification: a one-time
interpretation of the eligibility rules is required for this
particular exceptional situation, given the tight timeframe for
seating this year's NomCom.
NEW
The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed
between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who
can serve on that NomCom needs clarification: a one-time
interpretation of the eligibility rules is required for this
particular exceptional situation. That interpretation will apply
to the seating of that NomCom and to any rules that relate
to the NomCom process before IETF 108.
END
Section 3
OLD
This update is an emergency interpretation of the intent of BCP 10
for this current exceptional situation only, and applies only to the
2020-2021 NomCom, which is expected to be seated prior to IETF 108.
It will explicitly not apply to any future NomCom and does not set
precedent: another update to BCP 10 will be necessary to address
future eligibility, as there will be time for proper community work
on such an update.
NEW
This update is an emergency interpretation of the intent of BCP 10
for this current exceptional situation only, and applies only to the
2020-2021 NomCom, which is expected to be seated prior to IETF 108,
and to any rules that relate to the NomCom process before IETF 108.
It will explicitly not apply to any future NomCom and does not set
precedent: another update to BCP 10 will be necessary to address
future eligibility, as there will be time for proper community work
on such an update.
END
Looking at the above - perhaps this is better done as a combination of
permanent and temporary changes to BCP 10?
One permanent item maybe - or at least something that lets us deal with
various possibilities temporarily:
"For the purposes of calculating terms and dates of the Nomcom and
positions selected by the Nomcom, including the formation of any recall
committee or Nomcom requirement to select mid-term replacements 'end of
First meeting' shall be taken to mean the earliest of the last day of
the first in-person IETF meeting of the year or of a virtual meeting
designated by the IESG to replace the in-person meeting, or March 31st.
Likewise for the Second meeting except that the date shall be no earlier
than the end date of the first meeting and no later than July 30th.
Likewise for the Third meeting except that the end date shall be no
earlier than the date of the second meeting and no later than the 7th of
December. The beginning of such meeting shall be understood to be 6
days prior to the designated end date of that meeting."
I'm not opposed to leaving the document as is - but it would be nice to
have some idea of what the various dates mean without having to write
another temporary amendment.
Mike
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
