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?
Agreed.
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.
Agreed. There is ample opportunity to seek community feedback on an alternative.
But please do not suggest that the current nomcom chair should apply
some other rules.
Highly agree. Consistency is very important in a fair and open process. The chair should follow the process. .
regards,
Victor K
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
>
