Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 28/06/2021 23:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Thanks for the data. Comments in line:
>
> On 29-Jun-21 04:48, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> I believe the registration checkbox is probably the most relevant difference. I’ve gone through some of my records from last year. Note these are from personal records and these statistics are not formal, not approved by the 2020 NomCom, and not subject to anyone else’s validation. But since they don’t provide personal info, and I think this may be useful, I’m supplying these statistics.
>>
>>
>>
>> NomCom 2020
>>
>> Qualified people who volunteered by email: 74
>>
>> Qualified people who volunteered by IETF 108 registration (and not by email): 61
>>
>> Qualified people who volunteered by IETF 107 registration (pre-COVID cancellation, not by 108, not by email) and replied positively to my “still interested?” email: 8
>>
>> Total: 143
>
> (FWIW, I believe that *qualified* volunteers was a bit lower.)
>> Since most people have already registered for IETF, it would be too late to get people through a registration box this year if we were to re-open volunteering and add the box. I deeply doubt that re-opening volunteering for a week would get more than maybe 10 people, because it would be limited to mechanisms that have already been used to reach people (i.e., emails on general lists and potentially to WGs). Therefore, I recommend against re-opening the volunteer process.
>
> Certainly, if we ignored the elephant in the room (that most participants
> are not on the ietf-announce or this list) we'd get very poor results. The message would need to go to everybody in the mailman whitelist and would need some pretty strong motivational language, since we'd be trying to reach people who usually don't care about all this admin stuff. But IMHO this is a decision for the NomCom Chair to take.

I see invitations to volunteer for NomCom on many WG lists but do not 
find them encouraging.  The sense I get is of the WG Chair reluctantly 
doing what they feel obliged to do and then posting a further call 
because the first was so unsuccesful:-(  In particular, the issue of 
diversity does not really get a look in but, as this thread shows, it is 
a significant one.  The announcement e-mail is not bad, but could do 
better IMHO.

Tom Petch

>     Brian
>
>>
>> RFC8713 builds in massive amounts of process that NomCom has to follow – dependencies of things that have to be done before the next thing can be done, mandatory periods between certain announcements/events, etc. Shifting volunteer selection can potentially impact all the future dates, due to dependencies. Therefore, I recommend against re-opening volunteering. I recommend against impacting the NomCom Chair’s timeline for an effort that is unlikely to cause any significant increase in volunteers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some less well-documented personal observations:
>>
>> - Most volunteers from the big router companies came in shortly after the first announcement. I strongly suspect that internal company emails go
> around encouraging people to volunteer. I doubt this happens in other companies (or at least not to the same extent).
>>
>> - The WG emails **are** effective. Outside of the registration checkbox, they were the most effective tool in getting people from outside Routing area (and not from one of the main router vendors) to volunteer.
>>
>> - An interesting side-effect of most volunteers coming from the big router vendors is that NomCom experience last year was heavily from Routing Area participants and other Areas were not so well represented.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would recommend having a checkbox for IETF 114 (next year).
>>
>>
>>
>> Barbara
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe I am mistaken, but I perceived one change for this NomCom round :
> we used to be able to volunteer for the NomCom by just clicking a box in the registration process, and I didn’t see this option this year.
>>
>> Instead I had to send an email to be registered (a process somewhat automated later).
>>
>> It is possible that this change of habit has disrupted the flow of NomCom applications.
>>
>> One way of knowing would be to resume the NomCom box in the next registration cycle and see if we get different outcomes.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julien.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 8:12 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail] <mailto:[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.
>>
>>      FWIR, Huawei has had 2 Nomcom members for most of the last 5-8 Nomcoms.  Cisco, Ericsson and Juniper have also had substantial representation.
>>
>>      That may represent personal diversity, but it does not represent commercial diversity.
>>
>> [MB]  So, yeah, this is not a new problem and is reflective of the
> fact that folks from some companies have more support for their IETF work
> than others. So, perhaps, we reduce it to 1 from a single company. But, again, that's not a process change we can push through in time for this Nomcom.  The bigger problem in my view is still the fact that a lot of
> folks that might be qualified haven't volunteered.   [/MB]
>>
>>      Later, Mike
>>
>>
>>
>
> .
>