Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 30/06/2021 04:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 30-Jun-21 11:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> g_e_montenegro=[e-mail] wrote:
>>      > This discussion is what RFC8989 calls for in order to decide what to do
>>      > in the future. The IESG is tasked with driving that discussion once the
>>      > NomCom membership is finalized. One useful data point for that
>>      > discussion is the following: In the *current* state of the list (now at
>>      > 117 eligible volunteers), RFC8989's Path #1 (basically, attendance, as
>>      > we've used up to now) is what qualifies all but 3. Those 3 are all
>>      > qualified via Path 3 and Path 2 is superfluous as it shows up only when
>>      > either Path 1 or 3 already show up.
>>
>> I'm not surprised here.  Thanks for posting this...
>> To recap for readers:
>>    Path 1: 3/5
>>    Path 2: WG chair
>>    Path 3: listed author/editor
>>
>>      > The point is that Path 1 qualifies upwards of 97% of the
>>      > volunteers. Judging from this, RFC8989 hasn't had a significant effect
>>      > on the composition of the volunteer pool for NomCom 2021-2022, with
>>      > respect to the previous status quo (basically equivalent to path #1).
>>
>> The thing we need to know is, of the people who were qualified by path 1, 2,
>> or 3, why they did not in fact volunteer?
>>
>> I think that working backwards from who volunteers doesn't help us figure out
>> how to get more volunteers.
>
> Correct. I can't get past the fact that so few *active* particpants are subscribed here or (more alarmingly) to ietf-announce. One hypothesis is that people who don't care about IETF admin stuff *really* don't care, even if they are active contributors as per paths 2 or 3, so they will never volunteer. Another hypothesis is that we didn't do a good enough spamming job with the call for volunteers. Was there at least one call for volunteers in the inbox of everybody qualified under paths 2 or 3?

I tried searching the IETF mail archive for subject NomCom and date 
range end of May 2021 and was surprised to see only about 25 WG listed, 
of which several are quiescent, so persuading the WG Chairs to be more 
proactive could help.

My subjective impression from the WG lists that I track was that there 
would have been more.

Tom Petch

> Anyway, as Gabriel reminded us, this will be followed up after the NomCom is seated.
>
>     Brian
>
> .
>