IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 29 June 2021 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 F31003A3F87 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 rqsd7viF59CX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2AED3A3F8B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2BD389D9; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gUNx9kNo1k20; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEE1389D8; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7875018DD; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: g_e_montenegro=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom
In-Reply-To: <049101d76d32$8518daf0$8f4a90d0$@yahoo.com>
References: <c2148075-606d-8aa9-d7b4-71aa92a09fae@comcast.net> <1E2C4254-FE64-4862-8650-D5BA8A8CF86D@gmail.com> <5A6D6FDC160318B7908B10D8@PSB> <5de5923d-8d29-ff3c-a2e7-38303e6ea8a4@gmail.com> <4735.1624807172@localhost> <23d4e07b-6c3b-911f-d249-62949979f18b@gmail.com> <049101d76d32$8518daf0$8f4a90d0$@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:40:23 -0400
Message-ID: <12789.1625010023@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_V2778EYpdFCqq5yLsbtzpl2ULw>
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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 23:40:34 -0000

g_e_montenegro=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
    > This discussion is what RFC8989 calls for in order to decide what to do
    > in the future. The IESG is tasked with driving that discussion once the
    > NomCom membership is finalized. One useful data point for that
    > discussion is the following: In the *current* state of the list (now at
    > 117 eligible volunteers), RFC8989's Path #1 (basically, attendance, as
    > we've used up to now) is what qualifies all but 3. Those 3 are all
    > qualified via Path 3 and Path 2 is superfluous as it shows up only when
    > either Path 1 or 3 already show up.

I'm not surprised here.  Thanks for posting this...
To recap for readers:
  Path 1: 3/5
  Path 2: WG chair
  Path 3: listed author/editor

    > The point is that Path 1 qualifies upwards of 97% of the
    > volunteers. Judging from this, RFC8989 hasn't had a significant effect
    > on the composition of the volunteer pool for NomCom 2021-2022, with
    > respect to the previous status quo (basically equivalent to path #1).

The thing we need to know is, of the people who were qualified by path 1, 2,
or 3, why they did not in fact volunteer?

I think that working backwards from who volunteers doesn't help us figure out
how to get more volunteers.





--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email