Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: Fw: Last NomCom 2005/06 Call for Volunteers

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Oct 9, 2005, at 22:17, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>>     Harald> I don't think the number of eligible people has dropped  very
>>     Harald> much - and we just changed it from "2 out of 3" to "3  out of
>>     Harald> 5", which stretches the period a bit.
>>
>>   That's not my point.
>>   My point is that if you couldn't travel, you become ineligible.
> 
> 
> I think the number of eligible people is not a big issue - according  to 
> Ralph's email to ietf@, there were 849 people eligible this time  
> around. The problem is that the majority of eligible people don't  
> volunteer for NomCom.
> 
>>   It's hard to know if our pool of people is going up/down, because we
>> don't really know what our total population is.
>>   I think that the secretariat has numbers as to how many are eligible
>> for nomcom each time?
> 
> 
> That would be useful to know.

If this was the RFC3777bis WG, it would be. But I think it's a bit far
from the basic principles of process change that PESCI is trying to
identify.

As I said in plenary in Paris, we have about 740 people we could count
as core attendees (who attended 4 out of the previous 6 meetings,
measured at IETF62). That number is down from about 940 at the peak of
the Internet boom but is still a pretty solid base. You can assume
that core includes all current leaders (including WG chairs,
document editors, etc) and most likely all potential leaders for the
next few years, as well as all likely Nomcom volunteers.

    Brian

> 
>>   I'm suggesting a more complex measure. For instance, I'm thinking:
> 
> 
> Changing the eligibility rules may increase the pool. The impact on  the 
> number of volunteers will only be proportional, i.e., according  to 
> Ralph, 71/849 people volunteered this time at his last count. Even  if 
> the pool doubles (very optimistic) that will only double the  number of 
> volunteers. We need even more volunteers IMO. Other changes  may be 
> required for this.
> 
>>   Can you imagine being a WG chair without attending a meeting for a
>> year?  Yes, I can.  A WG that is *trying* to push final documents
>> through (so it can close), is not meeting, may actually have VERY
>> RELEVANT input as to recent state of affairs.
> 
> 
> Unrelated issue, but I participate in a group that isn't at that  stage 
> where I have seen the second co-chair maybe once (and I've  never seen 
> an email from him either.)
> 
> Lars
> -- 
> Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pesci-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
> 


_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss