On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:48:34PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> What we *don't* want is companies successfully gaming the
> leadership selection process in a way that compromises the
> quality of the IETF's output, or that favors a particular
> technology on the basis of something other than technical merit.
+1
> IETF process needs to be as open as it can be without damaging
> the organization itself, and this seems like a reasonable
> and low-impact defense mechanism.
Yes, but its selective to a specific part of the community just
because it was so easy to make that rule as opposed to rules for
similar problems (as i decribed my other emails).
> It's still the case that nomcom
> members can and will be fierce advocates for appointing someone
> from their own company, but by balancing nomcom membership there is, at
> least, a builtin defense against appointing someone completely
> unsuitable.
I am not sure if if this is actually true, to me that would rather
be "blindly promoting". But i think this does equally, if not more
happen now across other loyalty groups within Nomcom.
> > So if I may I would recommend that if at all required - such limit is to
> > be imposed to vendors only and never applied to operators or research
> > organizations or academia.
>
> Oh, if only we had the problem of too many participants or volunteers
> from operators or research organizations or academia ...
Well... thats a too long argument here.
Cheers
Toerless
> Melinda
>
>
> --
> Melinda Shore
> melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Software longa, hardware brevis
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
