Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee
RFC 8788
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Murray Kucherawy Yes
Robert Wilton Yes
Warren Kumari Yes
It ain't perfect, but is sure is a darn sight better than nothing...
Erik Kline No Objection
Martin Duke No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Thank you Barry for authoring this crystal clear document: community was involved, decision taken and well explained. -éric
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
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?
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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/ .
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Recuse