Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee
RFC 8788

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Murray Kucherawy Yes

Warren Kumari Yes

Comment (2020-05-06 for -02)
No email
send info
It ain't perfect, but is sure is a darn sight better than nothing...

Alvaro Retana Yes

Robert Wilton Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2020-05-06 for -02)
s/The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed/The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) is to be formed/

"That interpretation will apply to the seating of that NomCom and to any rules that relate to NomCom eligibility or process before the scheduled time for IETF 108." --> I don't understand this construct "any rules that relate to NomCom ... process." Is there something besides one's eligibility to serve on the NomCom that this document is changing? If not, why does this change apply to any NomCom process rules?

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Martin Duke No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2020-05-07 for -02)
It seems that my understanding of how things work and the intent of this document
was incorrect, so removing my discuss position.  There is apparently not a simple way
to define a mechanism for creating a recall committee after the scheduled time for IETF
108, and it's inappropriate to attempt to do so in this document.

Section 2

I wonder if there is a concise way to include in interpretation (2)
involving "three of six" that accurately reflects the "count
participation at 107" case.  (I don't have one to offer, and leaving the
text as-is would be tolerable.)

   In judging rough consensus the IESG has considered the arguments and
   levels of support in favor of and against each option: largely,
   issues of fairness to newer participants, acceptance of more
   participants in the volunteer pool, and greatest adherence to the
   spirit of the rules defined in BCP 10, which is the community-
   consensus basis we are working from.

nit(?): are these all written in the "in favor" sense?  I'm not actually
sure how to interpret the "against" text in this context.

Section 3

I agree with Michael Richardson's suggestion to clarify that this is
"interpretation 1".

   The following text modifies, for the 2020-2021 NomCom selection only,
   the first two paragraphs (quoted above) of Section 4.14 of BCP 10
   [RFC8713]:

But this is not just for NomCom selection; it also applies to the "rules
that relate to NomCom eligibility or process".  Should we instead say
"NomCom cycle"?  (Is that well-defined?  RFC 8713 uses the phrase twice
but does not give an explicit definition.)

Section 6.2

I'm curious why the [VIRTUAL107] reference was chosen to be
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Gqc4-GIsnvccObQrrciL_Vm0HMU/
as opposed to
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/cVDlJ4fVJIkfakBysTfsFchERCs/
.

Erik Kline No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-05-06 for -02)
Thank you Barry for authoring this crystal clear document: community was involved, decision taken and well explained.

-éric

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

Barry Leiba Recuse