Re: Registration/volunteer gap

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi John -

I think it's actually simpler than that.  If any of those 7 objected to 
their exclusion, then I think we'd probably have to rerun the process.  
It's not so much demographics as it is fairness.

Mike

ps - we've had problems with the selection process the last 3(?) times.  
It's possible that we need to actually define and document a specific 
protocol to deal with all of the edge cases (which have turned out to 
not to be so close to the edge as we thought).  In particular, the 
current model allows for "Hmm... if I refuse to serve then X is next on 
the list and they would mostly vote like me" types of calculation on the 
part of selectees.

On 8/11/2022 1:19 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Rich,
>
> I'm almost afraid to ask this question. I thing that what you
> are reporting means that, if the people who checked the box
> during that window (i) did not catch that they had not been put
> on the list at the time of the first posting of the volunteer
> list and complain/put their names back in (were there any people
> who did catch their omission and report that?) and (ii) are in
> any way different, as a group, demographically or in other ways,
> from the Nomcom candidates who did end up in the pool, then
> those selected for the Nomcom do not represent a random sample
> of those who volunteered to serve.   Is that correct?
>
> Too late now, but too bad this was not noticed before you reran
> the selection process.
>
> best,
>     john
>
>
> --On Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:07 -0700 NomCom Chair 2022
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> When you register for the IETF, you can check a box that says
>> "I want to volunteer for NomCom" The secretariat provides a
>> list to the tools team, who uploads the list and checks their
>> eligibility to be a volunteer.  This year, the list was
>> uploaded on July 8. The final list was posted on July 25. This
>> meant that people who registered after July 8 and checked the
>> box could have been omitted from the volunteer list. I believe
>> that this was not a problem before because previous NomCom
>> schedules happened earlier, but did not verify.
>>
>> With the great help of Robert Sparks of the tools team, and
>> Ryan Cross of the secretariat, I can report statistics about
>> this year.
>>
>> There were 51 people who registered between those dates.
>> Twenty-two of them were already on the volunteer list, and one
>> I know was ineligible. That leaves 28 potential volunteers who
>> did not got their eligibility checked and possibly added. A
>> manual run of those people through the filters shows that
>> about seven potential volunteers would have qualified. We say
>> "about" because the scan didn't check for other
>> disqualifications, like Board memberships. As a reminder, the
>> final volunteer list had 265 people (some of which were
>> ineligible; had they been picked, we would have gone to the
>> next candidate).
>>
>> A fix is in the works so that next year there will be no gap
>> between registration before the deadline and being added to
>> the volunteer list if you qualify.
>>
>> Thanks to Martin Vigoureux for bringing this to my attention.
>>
>>   -Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom Chair
>>
>