On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:57 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Toerless, you do understand that not only was the affiliation rule > arrived at by rough consensus, but as I recall it was added during the > process at the request of the community? Indeed, initially there was no affiliation rule (see, for example, RFC 2027). But it is common that one company sends substantially more people to IETF meetings than any other company. Which company changes as the years pass but it takes only a gentle hint by the technical management of that company for them to have a lot of people in the nomcom member volunteer pool. If I recall correctly, there came a year when 3 voting members of the nomcom were affiliated with the same company and then the next year 4 members were affiliated with that same company. And, to any outside observer, this smells really bad as well as being surprising and somewhat upsetting to many IETF participants. Furthermore, some calculations from the typical distribution of the volunteer pool at the time showed something like a 9% or so probability of that company having 4 or more members on the nomcom in any year. (This is all from memory.) So, the rule limiting voting members to no more than 2 with the same affiliate was adopted by a pretty strong consensus. I realize that people affiliated with a large company are not necessarily aligned with their employer. I remember one IETF when I was talking to an employee of a large company and they thought there was a good chance they were going to get a call during the IETF week saying they were fired due to a more severe mis-alignment than usual :-) But this sort of thing just isn't visible; what's visible without an affiliation limit is apparent domination by one company. > If you really think it is wrong, write a clear proposal of what you > think a better rule looks like. And then try to get some indication the > the community agrees with you. > > But please do not suggest that the current nomcom chair should apply > some other rules. +1 Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/29/2020 7:41 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 06:15:19PM -0400, John Levine wrote: > >> In article <20200629215721.GC34130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: > >>> Sure, but but if some part of the IETF community comes > >> >from an industry which for better or worse is structured into > >>> fewer large companies than other parts of the community then it > >>> puts this part of the community at a disadvantage. > > > >> I think you've just shown why we need this rule. > > > >> No sane person > actively wants to tbe on the nomcom. > > > > Are you implying my prior emails reads to you as if i would want to actively > > on NomCom, hence i am insance, hence the rule is needed to help me > > against my insanity ? > > > > Nothing against calling me insance, i think i proved that by writing > > an email against the established tradition of the NomCom rules. > > > > I just don't think my insanity proves your point: Just because i would > > not want folks from a category i belong to be more easily disqualified > > from NomCom election does not mean i would like the work associated with it. > > Difference between rights and responsibilities resulting from rights... > > > > [ Have you tried to run the math on this ? I am not even sure that > > a change would increase an individual large company candidate to be > > elected. Probably rather the opposite... Hmm, can't guess the outcome. ] > > > >> It's a lot of work, it keeps you > >> away from the sessions in at least one full meeting (assuming we ever > >> meet again.) People do it anyway for the benefit of the IETF. The > >> normal reaction to learning that you are less likely to be selected > >> because there's a lot of your co-workers on the list is great, that > >> means it's likely I'll have to do it. > > > > Well.. if you are lucky and there where good candidates and those also > > got elected, there is some satisfaction from that in the end. > > > >> The point of the selection rules is to get nomcoms that can work > >> effectively without undue external influence, > > > > Sure, and i think i made clear how i think this goal is IMHO badly applied. > > > >> not to be something you can check off on your next bigcorp annual review. > > > > I think its a lucky position for an IETF attendee to be on a job where > > the employeer would actually recognize time spent on NomCom as a > > good thing. Why against does this make big companies that do this > > evil ? At least thats what it sounds like to me. > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > >> R's, > >> John > > >
