Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 11 February 2015 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433741A1EFF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:19:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8c__Ra9UczkG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193E91A0371 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:19:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E1A203CD; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:26:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 5C53163A21; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0510D637F4; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:19:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <20150211205825.A17AC1A8A92@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <04AED0595DF62A6F1013479D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <54DB5CBE.3070502@dcrocker.net> <54DB66A0.1050006@pi.nu> <BE226640-1857-4232-9D4F-78445D82776A@nominum.com> <54DB78A1.5020407@pi.nu> <20150211205825.A17AC1A8A92@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:19:31 -0500
Message-ID: <2601.1423689571@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ScsvrKwGxoUFMKDjcDHfgn6XSsY>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Feb 2015 21:19:36 -0000

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>; wrote:
    > It would be interesting to take a look at the "large company" pool
    > volunteers over say the past 20 years and figure out a way of giving
    > them an activity factor (e.g. attendee vs contributor) - but finding an
    > objective scale that we could all agree with to assign such activity
    > factor would be difficult.

Agreed.
There is also an interesting scale at which you will get *NO* volunteers
from.  Those are companies just large enough to support an AD or an IAB
member, but not a lot of other in-person participation.  Since you can't
stand for a position if you are on the nomcom, those people won't voluneer.

so, when you do the analysis of activity, you have to also include all the
nominees into the pool.

    > The other number to look at might be the number of attendees
    > (percentage wise) per company per meeting vs number of volunteers
    > (percentage wise) per company per nomcom.  All things being equal I
    > would expect those percentages to be close to identical.

I anecdotally observe that I think that Google has a lower number of
volunteers for a "big" company.

    > I would
    > expect where the nomcom volunteer percentage exceeds the attendee
    > percentage to maybe be indicative of a desire by the company to place
    > members on the Nomcom.

It would also be useful to take, rather than attendance, instead, draft
authorship for the numerator.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [






--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-