Subject: Re: [Last-Call] NomCom eligibility & IETF 107

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 15:29:17 -0500

[Moving over to last-call, where the discussion on this draft is taking 
place...]

On 4 Apr 2020, at 8:52, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> It is clear in section 4.14 of RFC8713, it defines that last meetings 
> as the last meeting and not the last f2f meetings.

I think this is the key part of your message. It is *not* clear that 
"meetings" refers to other than face-to-face meetings. At the time of 
the writing of this requirement, there was not such thing as a 
non-face-to-face meeting, and I don't think it is clear that the 
intention of those who worked on this document would have been to 
include virtual meetings in the qualifications. That is not to say that 
the text can't be read the way you are reading it; it's a reasonable 
interpretation. But it's not *clear* that yours is the only 
interpretation.

You seem to be OK with the proposal that 102 gets counted; you only seem 
to be objecting to not counting 107. So, when you say you "don't accept" 
the solution proposed in this document, can you explain more clearly why 
the attendance at 107 absolutely must be counted? Is it simply that you 
don't accept that 8713 intended only face-to-face meetings be counted 
for qualification, or that it's unfair to not count 107, or is it 
something else? You might still end up in the "rough" part of the "rough 
consensus", but if you've got an argument that convinces the rest of us, 
I'm sure it would considered.

Also remember that there is a separate discussion, over on 
[email-masked], about the broader effort to make remote 
attendance count toward NomCom eligibility. I think your comments and 
suggestions would be much more helpful over there. Barry's document is 
about a one-time stop-gap measure. The other effort is about updating 
8713 to make it clear that remote participation (and perhaps some other 
criteria) should count toward NomCom eligibility.

Cheers,

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:00:38 +0200

> I'm sure it would considered.

We don't forget that who wrote the RFC8713 also ment by meeting is the
meeting that the IETF managers call it a meeting, so our IETF managers have
already called for a meeting and they called it meeting 107, so do you say
that 107 is not a meeting, if you say that, let us hear from our managers
what do they call 107. When you go to any meeting in the past or in present
or in future, usually you know who calls for the meeting, its the managers
call for the meeting, and the members or participants follow and come for
it and make effort. In our case, the IETF did call for the meeting and did
decide to make it official so participants followed. Therefore, how can we
exclude this meeting 107 and it is the real part of the last 5 meetings
that managers called for them. Also we don't forget the effort that many
participated in attending IETF107 meeting. The RFC8713 does not say to
exclude just because non f2f, so I think my opinion is more close to
RFC8713 than excluding a meeting without finding any text refers to f2f or
any text refering to way of excluding meetings and replacing other.

> criteria) should count toward NomCom eligibility.

I usually also commented/suggested that when a manager calls for last 5
meetings and participants are absent in two meeting then by RFC8713 they
are  eligible, so even if I add meeting 102, I should make sure that a
participant must have only two absent of (103,104,105,106), I just will add
102 to give him chance to be eligible even if he/she did not attend 107
because of the pandemic. So if participant is absent in 107 we don't count
his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was
called for by managers.

Usually absence affects meetings and are counted at no pandemics, but
attendance are always counted in all meetings. People's time count, how can
a document say that we exclude a meeting just because it was not f2f,
however, the question is do you have authority to exclude a meeting while
the managers of IETF already called for the meeting and the managers did
not cancel the meeting???

BEst Regards
AB

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 08:58:16 +1000

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020, at 04:00, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I usually also commented/suggested that when a manager calls for last 5 meetings and participants are absent in two meeting then by RFC8713 they are eligible, so even if I add meeting 102, I should make sure that a participant must have only two absent of (103,104,105,106), I just will add 102 to give him chance to be eligible even if he/she did not attend 107 because of the pandemic. So if participant is absent in 107 we don't count his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was called for by managers. 

Is there a particular person or group of people that you believe are disenfranchised by not including 107, or is this objection about "correctness" of some sort and following a set of rules.

"So if participant is absent in 107 we don't count his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was called for by managers." is clearly also not "correct" by the book of RFC8713, so we're back in competing alternative options, not following existing rules precisely.

So again - is your objection based on a particular group of people that you think are specifically disenfranchised by Barry's draft, or is it an alternative colour for this bikeshed we find ourselves having to urgently paint?

Cheers,

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
 [email-masked]

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 18:55:37 -0700

Hi AB,

> his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because it was

I'm confused about the use of "MUST" here.  It sounds like you are saying
that RFC 8713 requires it, but I think the whole premise of the document in
question is that it is updating and overriding RFC 8713 for the case of
IETF 107 and the 2020/2021 nomcomm.  That is, we are not bound by RFC 8713
since we can change any provisions that we need to -- we want to limit the
amount of the change to just what we need to have a clear picture for this
year's nomcom, but that is only out of a desire to make a minimal change
and not due to an obligation to remain faithful to the specific strictures
of RFC 8713.

> not cancel the meeting???

The proposal is to publich a BCP document with IETF consensus, the same
strength of rules that produced RFC 8713.  Is that not enough authority?

-Ben

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 02:02:09 -0700

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:59 PM Bron Gondwana <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> So again - is your objection based on a particular group of people that
> you think are specifically disenfranchised by Barry's draft, or is it an
> alternative colour for this bikeshed we find ourselves having to urgently
> paint?
>

Barry's draft doesn't reduce the number of people that might actually win.

The IETF, for better or worse, is administrated by less than 1000 people
that actually know each other. As Bron points out, there are real issues
with that pool, but this draft doesn't change it. This proposal is a good
measure to preserve continuity.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:08:10 +0200

Hi Benjamin,

> and not due to an obligation to remain faithful to the specific strictures

I believe we are bound because we are discussing and reviewing a draft now
to become RFC after the last meeting 107, not before.
If this document under review was published before 107 meeting, then yes we
are not bound, this virtual meeting is part of the last 5 meetings.
Therefore, if there is low attendance for the 107 meeting, we may say we
are not bound because low attendance, but there are many participants
attended,
so we should respect their time, difficulties and respect RFC8713. There
was an opportunity for postpone of 107 meeting to publish this draft, but
we did not have that.
That is why I said 107 meeting MUST be counted. If RFC8713 is about a
building or product process, yes I may not bound we can change which has no
feelings, but when it comes about humans including and excluding, then
should be bound by authorised-documents. Without forgetting that  bounding
is just for one NomCom in very special case with high health risk
now-while-review, in the world that may continue.

> strength of rules that produced RFC 8713.  Is that not enough authority?

What about the participants that attended 3 of 5 from 103-107 including
virtual-107 which did not attend 102, don't they now are authorised to
become legible, before publishing this proposal draft.
The authority is not with group-consensus it is with published
authority-documents, and there is no good reason why to exclude a
participant that attended meetings and now is eligible. We don't forget
that who attended 102 and only two other in-person meeting is in this time
or by now is not eligible, because he/she has no authority and now some
want to make him/her eligible after the 107 meeting ended.

Best Regards,
AB

---

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 22:22:44 -0400

Mostly just to help the IESG judge rough consensus, AB I strongly 
disagree with your interpretation of the facts on the ground, and 
therefore disagree with your interpretation of what "must" be done.  The 
proposed draft is acceptable within our processes, and seems to be a 
sufficiently good answer to a problem we have to resolve, now.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/9/2020 9:08 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:55 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi AB,
> 
>      > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:29 PM Pete Resnick
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>      >
>      > > [email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>, about the broader effort to
>     make remote
> I believe we are bound because we are discussing and reviewing a draft 
> now to become RFC after the last meeting 107, not before.
> If this document under review was published before 107 meeting, then yes 
> we are not bound, this virtual meeting is part of the last 5 meetings.
> was an opportunity for postpone of 107 meeting to publish this draft, 
> but we did not have that.
> building or product process, yes I may not bound we can change which has 
> no feelings, but when it comes about humans including and 
> excluding, then  should be bound by authorised-documents. Without 
> forgetting that  bounding is just for one NomCom in very special case 
> with high health risk now-while-review, in the world that may continue.
> 
> 
> that who attended 102 and only two other in-person meeting is in this 
> time or by now is not eligible, because he/she has no authority and now 
> some want to make him/her eligible after the 107 meeting ended.
> 
> Best Regards,
> AB
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:58:07 +0800

Abdussalam. Joel and IESG,

I have said this before, but not in relation to the Last-Call, I
strongly agree with Joel.

/Los

On 10/04/2020 10:22, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>      > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 10:29 PM Pete Resnick
>>      >
>>      > > [Moving over to last-call, where the discussion on this draft
>>     is taking
>>      > > place...]
>>      > >
>>      > > On 4 Apr 2020, at 8:52, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>      > >
>>      > > > It is clear in section 4.14 of RFC8713, it defines that last
>>     meetings
>>      > > > as the last meeting and not the last f2f meetings.
>>      > >
>>      > > I think this is the key part of your message. It is *not* clear
>>     that
>>      > > "meetings" refers to other than face-to-face meetings. At the
>>     time of
>>      > > the writing of this requirement, there was not such thing as a
>>      > > non-face-to-face meeting, and I don't think it is clear that the
>>      > > intention of those who worked on this document would have 
>> been to
>>      > > include virtual meetings in the qualifications. That is not to
>>     say that
>>      > > the text can't be read the way you are reading it; it's a
>>     reasonable
>>      > > interpretation. But it's not *clear* that yours is the only
>>      > > interpretation.
>>      > >
>>      > > You seem to be OK with the proposal that 102 gets counted; you
>>     only seem
>>      > > to be objecting to not counting 107. So, when you say you
>>     "don't accept"
>>      > > the solution proposed in this document, can you explain more
>>     clearly why
>>      > > the attendance at 107 absolutely must be counted? Is it simply
>>     that you
>>      > > don't accept that 8713 intended only face-to-face meetings be
>>     counted
>>      > > for qualification, or that it's unfair to not count 107, or 
>> is it
>>      > > something else? You might still end up in the "rough" part of
>>     the "rough
>>      > > consensus", but if you've got an argument that convinces the
>>     rest of us,
>>      > > I'm sure it would considered.
>>      > >
>>      >
>>      > We don't forget that who wrote the RFC8713 also ment by meeting
>>     is the
>>      > meeting that the IETF managers call it a meeting, so our IETF
>>     managers have
>>      > already called for a meeting and they called it meeting 107, so
>>     do you say
>>      > that 107 is not a meeting, if you say that, let us hear from our
>>     managers
>>      > what do they call 107. When you go to any meeting in the past or
>>     in present
>>      > or in future, usually you know who calls for the meeting, its the
>>     managers
>>      > call for the meeting, and the members or participants follow and
>>     come for
>>      > it and make effort. In our case, the IETF did call for the
>>     meeting and did
>>      > decide to make it official so participants followed. Therefore,
>>     how can we
>>      > exclude this meeting 107 and it is the real part of the last 5
>>     meetings
>>      > that managers called for them. Also we don't forget the effort
>>     that many
>>      > participated in attending IETF107 meeting. The RFC8713 does not
>>     say to
>>      > exclude just because non f2f, so I think my opinion is more 
>> close to
>>      > RFC8713 than excluding a meeting without finding any text refers
>>     to f2f or
>>      > any text refering to way of excluding meetings and replacing 
>> other.
>>      >
>>      > >
>>      > > Also remember that there is a separate discussion, over on
>>      > > [email-masked]
>>      > > attendance count toward NomCom eligibility. I think your
>>     comments and
>>      > > suggestions would be much more helpful over there. Barry's
>>     document is
>>      > > about a one-time stop-gap measure. The other effort is about
>>     updating
>>      > > 8713 to make it clear that remote participation (and perhaps
>>     some other
>>      > > criteria) should count toward NomCom eligibility.
>>      > >
>>      >
>>      > I usually also commented/suggested that when a manager calls for
>>     last 5
>>      > meetings and participants are absent in two meeting then by
>>     RFC8713 they
>>      > are  eligible, so even if I add meeting 102, I should make sure
>>     that a
>>      > participant must have only two absent of (103,104,105,106), I
>>     just will add
>>      > 102 to give him chance to be eligible even if he/she did not
>>     attend 107
>>      > because of the pandemic. So if participant is absent in 107 we
>>     don't count
>>      > his absence but if he/she attended it is MUST be counted because
>>     it was
>>      > called for by managers.
>>
>> If this document under review was published before 107 meeting, then 
>> yes we are not bound, this virtual meeting is part of the last 5 
>> meetings.
>> Therefore, if there is low attendance for the 107 meeting, we may say 
>> we are not bound because low attendance, but there are many 
>> participants attended,
>> so we should respect their time, difficulties and respect RFC8713. 
>> There was an opportunity for postpone of 107 meeting to publish this 
>> draft, but we did not have that.
>> building or product process, yes I may not bound we can change which 
>> has no feelings, but when it comes about humans including and 
>>      > Usually absence affects meetings and are counted at no 
>> pandemics, but
>>      > attendance are always counted in all meetings. People's time
>>     count, how can
>>      > a document say that we exclude a meeting just because it was 
>> not f2f,
>>      > however, the question is do you have authority to exclude a
>>     meeting while
>>      > the managers of IETF already called for the meeting and the
>>     managers did
>>      > not cancel the meeting???
>>
>> What about the participants that attended 3 of 5 from 103-107 
>> including virtual-107 which did not attend 102, don't they now are 
>> authorised to become legible, before publishing this proposal draft.
>> participant that attended meetings and now is eligible. We don't 
>> forget that who attended 102 and only two other in-person meeting is 
>> in this time or by now is not eligible, because he/she has no 
>> authority and now some want to make him/her eligible after the 107 
>> meeting ended.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> AB
>>
> 

-- 

My mail server it under a DOS attack, we are working to fix it but it
may take some time.

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:07:18 +0900

I agree with most others on this list that the proposal now in Last Call 
(with the agreed tweaks) is definitely good enough.

In addition to what has been said, in my understanding, IETF consensus 
can change rules at any time and in any way. Of course, arbitrary or 
capricious rule changes are a bad idea, but this case is far from 
arbitrary or capricious, it's just one very reasonable way to deal with 
the problem.

I hope that whoever is in charge of this discussion can soon declare 
(rough) consensus on the issue that is being debated the most, so that 
we can move forward. I wrote this mail only to help with this.

Regards,   Martin.

On 10/04/2020 11:58, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> therefore disagree with your interpretation of what "must" be done.  
>> The proposed draft is acceptable within our processes, and seems to be 
>> a sufficiently good answer to a problem we have to resolve, now.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:31:10 +0000

> meeting that the IETF managers call it a meeting, so our IETF managers have

Who are the IETF managers?  Is it the IESG, the IETF Chair, the IRTF Chair, the IAB, and/or the IETF Executive Director?

Note the subject line: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled for the email at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/XenAlx4Nw6Jmg69QpXRUOwbzsXY/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:34:19 +0200

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:31 PM Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Who are the IETF managers?  Is it the IESG, the IETF Chair, the IRTF
> Chair, the IAB, and/or the IETF Executive Director?
>
> Note the subject line: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled for
> the email at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/XenAlx4Nw6Jmg69QpXRUOwbzsXY/

Yes the In-person meeting was cancelled because there is no availability in
the world for 107 meeting.

However, the IETF meeting was not cancelled, it was conducted and there was
excellent number of participation

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:00:25 +0200

> therefore disagree with your interpretation of what "must" be done.

Ok, I hope you give chance to others give opinion to agree/other now and in
the future until 30 April,

> The

I usually don't follow IETF list, but I checked now the IETF list and their
were opinions smilar to my opinion.

However, I  just replied my comments to The IESG request, also I  replied
to clarifications request by participants, which may change their mind, so
I hope you give that availability.

Best regards
AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:04:36 +0200

> we can move forward. I wrote this mail only to help with this.

It is Not *right* to declare consensus or not until the end of the IETF LC.
I hope who is in charge to reply to me if I am mistaken, because I am
unaware of special rules.

AB

> last-call mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:06:52 -0500

I also supported IETF 107 participation to count but IETF 107 participants
including myself did not pay registration fee,
so no pay no vote,
it is that simple :)

Behcet

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 10:01 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ok, I hope you give chance to others give opinion to agree/other now and
> in the future until 30 April,
>
>> The
> I usually don't follow IETF list, but I checked now the IETF list and
> their were opinions smilar to my opinion.
>
>> yes
>> we
>> There
>> has
>> >      > attendance are always counted in all meetings.. People's time
>> >     count, how can
>> including

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:07:02 +0000

You didn’t answer this question:

---

From: Dave Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 12:04:25 -0400

> including myself did not pay registration fee, 

That is simple, yes, but I don't think it really comports with the way
most people see the IETF.  Things are a bit more complicated than
that, even if the practical effect has been to make that connection.

While I agree that in-person attendance is something that is normally
paid for, the idea that we are participating as individuals but very
often have our way payed by our employers has always made murky just
how much contributors are really representing companies.  (Yes, I
expect some argument on that point.)  Making a pay-to-vote system
brings even more questions about the meaning of the source of the payment.

I don't think we want to go down the road of explicitly tying voting
rights to payments.  Money was never really the currency of the IETF,
despite its infrastructure necessity.  I have more thoughts on this,
it'd be headed down a rathole.  I think the current document is a good
way of addressing the current situation.

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:22:56 -0500

Hi AB,

> It is Not *right* to declare consensus or not until the end of the 

It would not be OK for the AD to end discussion completely, but it is 
perfectly OK for the AD to say, "I've heard the X Y and Z points on 
issue A, and based on those, I think there is rough consensus. If there 
are new arguments other than X Y and Z, we would like to hear them, but 
until then, issue A is closed."

pr

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 22:48:48 +0200

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your clarification, my comments below,

> until then, issue A is closed."

That is acceptable, and I think is very good for us to go forward. Don't
you think that any participant should not push for that input by many posts
of against? it is not fair for discussion progress, some people get tired
by that, and I think I will as well. There are people that had discussed
the issue from March and they think it is solved, but as IETF LC we need to
give chance to others to input within this pandemic. Also saying : *there
is no much time* or *there may be no consensus which is big problem* or *we
need a conclusion by AD now*, IMHO makes discussion go in direction to
force consensus with no freedom.

Finally,  I think there may be many that may want to send their comments
privately to IESG and I think it should be acceptable and must be counted
and respected in such pushing-environment.

Best Regards
AB

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 16:06:40 -0500

On 10 Apr 2020, at 15:48, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

> That is acceptable, and I think is very good for us to go forward. 
> Don't you think that any participant should not push for that input by 
> many posts of against? it is not fair for discussion progress, some 
> people get tired by that, and I think I will as well. There are people 
> that had discussed the issue from March and they think it is solved, 
> but as IETF LC we need to give chance to others to input within this 
> pandemic. Also saying : *there is no much time* or *there may be no 
> consensus which is big problem* or *we need a conclusion by AD now*, 
> IMHO makes discussion go in direction to force consensus with no 
> freedom.

This is a more philosophical discussion that we should take off list if 
it goes longer, but my short answer: It's always true in these sorts of 
discussions that some people go on too long and people get discouraged, 
and some people cut their comments short and people get discouraged. The 
balance is always difficult with a large group, and especially so in 
this kind of discussion when there is time pressure.

But I do not think there's a problem with the leaders of the discussion 
pushing the consensus along, either by saying, "I've heard this already; 
no need to get repetitive" or "We need to move towards consensus; please 
be direct and answer these questions". Of course it is possible to get 
too heavy handed, which we do not want, but we do not have infinite time 
and it is appropriate to push people to be concise and clear so that a 
decision can be made.

(I don't think it is helpful for others on the list to push like this; 
better to leave it to the chair or the AD or the shepherd who is driving 
the discussion.)

> Finally,  I think there may be many that may want to send their 
> comments privately to IESG and I think it should be acceptable and 
> must be counted and respected in such pushing-environment.

As it says in all Last Call announcements, "Exceptionally, comments may 
be sent to [email-masked] instead." That is, we prefer the comments on 
the last-call list, but if you need to, you may always send to the IESG 
directly.

pr

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 16:49:57 +0200

comment 4
++++++++++
IMHO, the draft should include the real reasons why the IETF and IESG
decided that IETF 107 is not counted comparing the reason with availability
and opportunity.

Firstly, the below is one example of the simple reason of such decision
which I think many in community follow this reasoning, with the reply from
me.

> that, even if the practical effect has been to make that connection.

Yes, it can be simple, but not that simple, but we can say another simple
reason why I want to count 107 meeting, is because the registration fees
for this meeting was not available by IETF managers.
If there was an availability of people to pay whom want to be eligible and
whom don't want to, then I agree we can say your reasoning of simple that
who did not pay then not eligible.

> brings even more questions about the meaning of the source of the payment.

I will see it from another point of view, we as participants may think in a
business way or an engineering way, the best way is to do both ways. All
business and companies in technology field are now worth alot of money,
which is in reality should not be worth that big, many experts in computer
(e.g.  bil-gatess) which are business men and women have realised this, and
so many have joined volunteering societies like ISOC and others to donate
to the world that makes benefit to important needs, also to reach the
needed person by technology or Internet. The reason of technology should
not be making few/some rich but should be make all needed people with
similar opportunity of good health and education. I believe the IETF is for
that important reason and important need.

> rights to payments.

I agree, specially when IETF 107 had no availability to pay any special
case fee.....

Secondly, the draft states some reasons of the decision of counting 102-106
and excluding 107, but it does not state what was available to the
participants that are seeking to be part in NomCom. Your draft reason was
In-Person meeting understandning/meaning in RFC8713, and some in IETF say
that it was the community decision when the 8713 written, but also at that
time of writting 8713 the virtual meetings were available in the world, so
why they did not mention that clearly. IMHO, it is because meetings are
meetings when the manager of the meeting calls it a meeting, so they left
it flexible. However, if my interpretation is wrong then it is very simple
that this 8713 document gives flexibility but without excluding
participants that have given no availability nor opportunity.

Thirdly, if we follow the way of thinking of that reason of the meaning of
last 5 meetings were the In-person meeting, because the author and
community writing 8713 were agreeing on In-person but they did not have to
write it explicitly. Then, why not we think that the authors and community
of 8713 decisions are mostly meaning importantly that participants
attending the 3 of the 5 last are knowing that such meeting will be
counted. Participants awareness of what is counted or not MUST be essential
for fair opportunity and availability. The draft is giving chance to
participants attending 102 which they knew it was not counted for 2020-2012
nomcom and excluding the human-awareness factor. Therefore, IMHO the 8713
should count 107 meeting.

Best Regards
AB