Hi, Rich,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But we're obviously not trusted to do so
when working for a large employer.
I don't believe this is correct. The individuals are trusted, but the risk is that the large employer will "flood the field."
When it mattered, that was my experience (I believe I'm one of two eligible Nomcom participants from my current employer, but that's a HUGE change from 2005-2019).
> Why are big vendors the only aspect we try to protect NOMCOM
against ?
Because those are the main potential adversary of trying to tip the playing field to get their staff into leadership.
It's worth noting that we tend to shoot where the duck is, rather than leading the target.
We've had some periods where a few large companies sent lots of participants to the IETF often enough to qualify them for Nomcom, and we thought that having a Nomcom where half the voting members were from one or two companies was a bad look).
If the community has concerns about other significant vulnerabilities, we should probably try to fix them. Which leads me to
> "we don't know how to do better, but if you have an
idea, please bring it forward".
Isn't that implicit in everything the IETF does?
I'd like to think so ;-)
The best proof of that is what gets brought forward, of course.
Best,
Spencer
