Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28-Jun-21 13:21, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Sunday, June 27, 2021 20:12 -0400 Michael StJohns
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/27/2021 8:00 PM, Mary B wrote:
>>> [MB] Per the process, I don't think that it allows more than
>>> *2*  from  a single company.  So, I think the problem isn't
>>> as bad as some  perceive.  Personally, I see the bigger
>>> problem as the fact that  *many* that were qualified didn't
>>> volunteer. [/MB]
>>>
>> The problem (IMNSHO) is that, statistically, if you (company)
>> have a large enough proportion of the pool, you have a pretty
>> much guaranteed probability of having 2 members.   If you
>> have 2 members for every nomcom, you can have a
>> disproportionate impact in the overall composition of the
>> leadership of the IETF over time.
>> ...
> 
> Mike, while I completely agree, I am also thinking about how
> much bigger we would need to make the pool to overcome the
> number of volunteers from that company, i.e., to make their
> fraction of the volunteers small enough relative to the total to
> significantly reduce the chances of their ending up with two
> Nomcom members.  If the goal is to increase pool diversity,
> getting more volunteers would probably do it.  If it is to
> reduce the influence of a small list of organizations, I'd
> doubtful that we could bring enough people out even though I
> think it might be worth a try.
> 
> I favor extending the period for people to volunteer by a week
> or so and believe, as you and others have suggested, that it
> falls well within the limits and precedents of other deadlines
> we extend when that seems sensible.  However, if the goal is to
> prevent an organization from guaranteeing itself one or two
> Nomcom seats [1] there are some obvious ways to do that, but
> they would clearly require the sort of significant procedural
> changes that Joel, Brian, and others seem to be warning against.

I'm not against significant changes. I'm just against significant
changes on the fly during the current year's process.

Having looked again at BCP10, I do agree that the NomCom Chair has the
power to re-open the call for volunteers for a week or so, but that
doesn't seem worth doing without a mail shot to everybody that
the code deems to be eligible. Judging by the model we used to justify
RFC8989, it seems to me there are probably several hundred people
who may well not realise that they are eligible or even that the
call for volunteers went out. Remember we have *lots* of participants
who are not on the general lists.

   Brian

> best,
>    john
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Whether that is via a coordinated effort or just as
> consequence of the ways in which people are encouraged to
> participate (including trying to guarantee support for
> attendance at IETF meetings as others have suggested) actually
> makes no difference as far as Nomcom diversity (not just pool
> diversity) is concerned.
> 
>