Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Wed, 11 February 2015 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
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 DD3541A8A8E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:58:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MISSING_MID=0.497, 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 0rqj3Qg2SQXr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 294CF1A89AC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.100]) by resqmta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id r8up1p0062AWL2D018yK1T; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:58:19 +0000
Received: from Mike-T530ssd.comcast.net ([69.255.115.150]) by resomta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id r8yJ1p00C3Em2Kp018yJNy; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:58:19 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:58:50 -0500
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>,Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
In-Reply-To: <54DB78A1.5020407@pi.nu>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1423688299; bh=UCcsLWg6afC1n19LPvDeP57km7r2wB3X3bEo2PtYTmo=; h=Received:Received:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=X3C90axnixo0GmYH5irhT6V9j95kwaR17t5vACXaRxplhg19yd50dB9r8Nv+p/NqQ IBotw5zSbaGhqsHp2TmUMLzlSBT+sgnMf/+ahZDHFQjEW1oPuyacRh1JDjWL51V1kg vuKxxa04bazfqM9zmtr2KxAXl69S1UTYPs+wr4QNC54HVlChT2CcBUDRgQIqRDTQrB g2z8uoH9h9AKmC50mtnDnDwwk1sHhCa74nMYgP/kPKt6bcLprLVvWB0MNSKNQ5aTUq apeywtgNiyxsf3l5Pi3QUDclapVkKR4jkElaVLvJjfedAN4++L4zml/MVokU1sNxxh o045vRfkOSOag==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LkE7JCqzJXdoFNioZ1KpmW-8mR4>
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 20:58:23 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20150211205826.8657.77096.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

At 10:43 AM 2/11/2015, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who are not on it.   For those who have interacted with a nomcom as candidates, such an impression might exist.   It's possible that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this.   However, since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I don't know how much they could really say.   Because these properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good natures.
>
>Sorry I was not talking about the operations of the NomCom, but how
>many drones we have in the pool. Looking at a few of the last pools
>(the +100) I dare say that the figure is low, if we regardless of that
>have problems in the NomCom operations no rule whatsoever will help.


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.

I say large company because about 55-60% (rough number - just from scanning) or so of the voting members of the Nomcoms over the last 20 years appear have come from companies with large numbers of attendees at the IETF - said companies tending to be what I think of as "big".   

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 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.

Later, Mike