> 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.
>
>> The question I will ask is this: Is there anyone who *can't live with
>> that outcome*?
Yes I don't accept that IETF 102 is one of the last 5 meetings as defined by RFC8713. There is no doubt that 102 is one of last 6 meetings.
It is clear in section 4..14 of RFC8713, it defines that last meetings as the last meeting and not the last f2f meetings. If you consider 107 as not a meeting and call the coming of 108 as 107, then yes I can live with that. However, it is not right to call for 107 and then say it was not a meeting, or it is not part of the last 5 meetings of eligible NomCom. Therefore, 107 must be part of last 5 meetings.
> I could live with that, either with or without my suggested text, of course.
including 102 because of the pandemic is ok, because the 102 is one of the last in-person-meetings..
Therefore, to follow RFC8713 correctly, we should consider the last 5 meetings in sequence which includes 107 (RFC8713 is clear it was meant last 5 in-sequence more than in-person) and we also should consider includes 5 last in-person meeting (so then we add 102 without replacing another).
Best Wishes,
AB
