Re: On diversity in the NomCom

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 15 July 2020 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1523A0B69 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hBCI0wIa-sa8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 362E23A0882 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id a12so4102740ion.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wC8zdSAQIStmtvyFxJQO3wP/sRRGkvyTgvzvsl9MByE=; b=fkHNLGDTVwFmNkb7t3EqxclRevvVZjpzmxT2eYQfU77tiynFcJXQ2Fj6Uiak68H661 +oRkaAnDCzsleFMNOnTfOQIYAM4/nHcmWB3NN+ths5R+5ddpp5IQ1hAsbV7Kh6M96pIx KUb3CbYH0tdUamIL+4lnL7qTlPOxP0Y1/0Itc7PhcdUPyI2JVZHlFd51szhyXdc2foAO mKFlTYcGwl96s67PNnSni1fLYf+8YHjtIUB2OQIAoSoMzXZ9f9O0KVKEqrpF29xoBC+q bFjjUm2h9c2SAkaLkPNrt61FdsWitEl7nbxKJbHOIwvZUafAl8kwvlYk1d1yPqhzrx8K 3PhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wC8zdSAQIStmtvyFxJQO3wP/sRRGkvyTgvzvsl9MByE=; b=H/+bRtbNQVSXMlI8Ewf26ANnfzXoU64c1yhVlaxNwqF7fTOg7GpFrO55hT1koOZoRi vZ6GoxqB0/LFrW5oqaZw+NeSuZfj0X7cUVDvarPEGfjSLvuBiBsKdLBsQ8NUcX8/7Xdn cohnmS+OpTBhfLHkCXIF/cKcweQpl2H1wRHj8DRn0iVPFNo3qsEaX8RM3bVw8TdFSu8a TBKJwxlnAXWbh0rQ2aBCU1z5NSRPeIJnV32gQs5vES3eUL58vRLamRgCRIQvsVctnsks JTUOX6Fh7CvzPnsyEWsgkmiVfh2G0AHe3wHdNsjFzu8Mf8ANFK9inNpmUKl+2SyUrUfr Vc6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331WqhmNLn+kVZK9stcPajLL3/nyDJwSrMcojvR4xm27kJw9Gtq 5mMoU+DMfZyuR0D9X24Jeaz2tb/x3EVeTFEEGIU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBKnRhMJP7Z5ykH3Epr6Ojf/PvjS9i3nUx7E5dWLJ/O3rXYswowNPgSrpyNj1MqVm3/zoo+s1An/RAXcilLcM=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b5cd:: with SMTP id e196mr1782192iof.46.1594856360265; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7429392e-a411-4c40-8fa9-f03de558b7ca@dogfood.fastmail.com> <CAChr6Sweag6G2sfdOrpGUZnPybK4eqn-EHFVHMgSv5V+MtHcow@mail.gmail.com> <d3187a20-76a8-0ef9-d32f-6b8e400a0d30@gmail.com> <ee517835-1ad4-e2c0-a33b-e194f7c37f95@gmail.com> <CAChr6SxXwKwwtXxL+9f2Zz8kufpnOLmHHkK-dY6PC+k9mNE4+w@mail.gmail.com> <16772aec-9ead-3658-16c8-dfbcdfa19edc@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <16772aec-9ead-3658-16c8-dfbcdfa19edc@gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:39:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sy+a=ziSH-D8Q+wQLDA6rEXg2SfiE+4V7trr2z20kQs9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: On diversity in the NomCom
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d24c5905aa836e8a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9ewnYFlFmZnvZfUrDsmtL3iPmWM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:39:22 -0000

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:10 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15-Jul-20 20:51, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:57 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Nevertheless, the fact is that big
> >     companies can (and do) send more people, and provide more sponsorship
> >     (such as hosting meetings, and funding Area Directors), than small
> >     companies. If they didn't get something back for that, they would
> >     complain, or simply withdraw their resources.
> >
> >
> > This seems like one of those things that might not "return to normal".
> >
> > IETF work seems to be proceeding fine without people flying long
> distances to sit in a hotel conference room and look at their laptops.
>
> That doesn't change my argument that big companies are more able than
> small companies to donate resources to the IETF. Whether those resources
> come out of the travel budget is a detail.
>

Yes, the point was to consider whether the IETF needs the money. The number
of meetings is a sliding scale. Zero is probably not a good idea, but three
per year seems like too many. I attended a few IETF meetings long ago, and
I can understand why they must happen occasionally.

Area Director and WG chair time is a real cost, and I would advocate
reducing that commitment as well. Perhaps the IETF should no longer publish
Informational or Experimental RFCs. Internet-Drafts are good enough for
that.

thanks,
Rob