Subject: Re: NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 23:09:23 +0200

Hi Barry,

I think it is good to consider whom attended in person 3m of last 5m, and
also consider the in person 3m of last 6 meetings, IMHO, the importance is
that he/she attended 3 last meeting. In the IETF rule the importance is
attending three meetings, but 5 or 6m are the same for all if we consider
the absence, so that they have been at most missing two meetings of no
pandemic situation.

Who could not attend remotely in ietf107 we should consider if attended 3
of 6 last, and who attended meeting ietf107 it should be added as if
attended in person because of pandemic or because all organisations use
remotely as in person now in pandemic.

Best Regards,
AB

> On Mar 13, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> <&lt;[email-masked]&gt;> wrote:
>
> The cancellation of the in-person IETF 107 meeting raises the issue of
> how that meeting affects NomCom (Nominating Committee) eligibility.
> This is especially important because a new NomCom will be formed
> between now and IETF 108, giving us all a fairly short time to figure
> out what to do.
>
> For convenient reference, the current rules for an IETF participant to
> be eligible to be a voting member of a NomCom (Section 4.14 of RFC
> 8713) require attendance in person at three of the last five meetings.
> Normally, for the upcoming NomCom, that would mean three of the
> following five meetings: 107 (Vancouver), 106 (Singapore), 105
> (Montréal), 104 (Prague), 103 (Bangkok). A new participant who had
> been to 105 and 106 would become eligible by attending 107.  An
> occasional participant who had been to 103 and 105 would also become
> eligible by attending 107. On the other side, someone who had attended
> 102, 104, and 105 would lose eligibility by NOT attending 107.
>
> The IESG would like the community’s input: How do *you* think 107
> should be treated in regards to NomCom eligibility?  While we have
> time to come up with a longer-term answer for this as a general
> matter, we need to make a one-time decision about how to handle 107
> now, before this year’s NomCom is formed.
>
> One choice is to entirely ignore 107 for the purposes of NomCom
> eligibility.  The last five meetings would then be 106, 105, 104, 103,
> and 102, and one would have had to attend three of those to be
> eligible this year.
>
> Another choice is to consider 107 to be a meeting that everyone has
> attended, for the purpose of NomCom eligibility.  There, the last five
> would still be 107 to 103, but 107 would be an automatic “yes” for
> anyone who volunteers for the NomCom.
>
> Perhaps there are other workable options.  Please let us know what you
> think by responding to this message thread.  And to be absolutely
> clear: whatever we, as a community, decide now, with fairly short lead
> time, is for the 2020-2021 NomCom cycle only.  Any longer-term
> decisions might be different and will need to be done through a more
> formal, consensus-based process, which we also hope to initiate in the
> near future.
>
> Thanks in advance for the discussion we’re sure to have on this.
>
> Barry, for the IESG

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 15:52:32 +0200

> 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