Hi Joel,
I hope you are well,
I think it is important to consider the last 5 meetings which include 107, but the draft does not consider and ignores the pandemic. Usually important participants don't attend in person when they have problems in their live or difficulties, but still we can count them missing, but in the pandemic situation all organisations in the world now is already attending remotely.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:33 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AB, I do not think you want what you have written. If we were to do
what you said, then until we have a face-to-face meeting there will be
no new nomcom-eligible individuals.
why not eligible for counting 107 and other last if attended. I want to count in the 107 meeting as in person because all business in the world do count remote meetings and they get paid for it.
As a one-time solution to the immediate problem, the document as written
works. Let's do it so we can move forward.
Yes it works but IMHO it is not fair, because we are in a pandemic, and many people in the world are suffering including IETF participants.
As a long term solution, no, the document does not work. Which is why
there are other discussions as to how to resolve the problem longer
term.
ok if it does not work, then I think it is better to give chance to who attended 107 and count it. I really hope we don't loose some of our participants in this pandemic, so counting 107 is important for ietf future.
With an expectation that there will be a suitable document
produced before we need it. If the community can not come to sufficient
agreement to do that in the next 9 months, we have a different problem.
There is a problem with the world or in organisation's business, so it is good to solve things faster than 9 months.
however, thanks for your reply and comments,
best wishes,
AB
Yours,
Joel
On 4/3/2020 4:21 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I don't agree that this draft states only for 2020-2021, this draft
> should be for the future of this period and for any consequences. Why
> should we go through the process again every time if some thing happens
> in future.
>
> If we issue best practice it should be for a procedure not stating one
> time rule, how can you be sure that doing it once means best practice.
> Please amend it to state the situation of remote participation because
> of a pandemic and if it happens in the future we can use this best
> practice again to solve problems without wasting time for another IESG
> review and IETF review.
>
> AB
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:26 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
> consider the
> following document: - 'Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating
> Committee'
> <draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> last-call@xxxxxxxx <mailto:last-call@xxxxxxxx> mailing lists by
> 2020-04-30. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iesg@xxxxxxxx> instead. In either
> case, please retain the beginning
> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
> 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. This document
> provides
> a one-time interpretation of the eligibility rules that is required
> for the exceptional situation of the cancellation of the in-person
> IETF 107 meeting. This document only affects the seating of the
> 2020-2021 NomCom, and does not set a precedent for the future.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx <mailto:IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
