On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Kurt Zeilenga
<Kurt(_dot_)Zeilenga(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not
consider the NOMCOM ramifications. If I had, I think it would likely that I
would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.
I agree here.
I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but
a change to the BCP. Applying such changes retroactively stinks.
I disagree here for the reasons I've already posted.
So, with such disagreements, someone has to settle it even if there
isn't a clear consensus. Pretty much all the bodies who could possibly
make this decision have an extremely remote but theoretically real
conflict. I have confidence that if there is a clear consensus that
day membership should count as attendance towards NOMCOM
qualification, the IESG will see that. But I sure don't see such a
consensus against the IESG suggestion so I think it is not only
correct but that it should stick.
Donald
So, I guess I won't have NOMCOM eligible this year (due to the change,
assuming I attend the next IETF under a full registration).
-- Kurt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf