On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 08:57:17PM -0400, Joel Halpern 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?
>
Of course.
> 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.
I did say what i wanted to say. Including that it is way too early in what i
think is the predominant thinking in the community to move this argument further.
I am disappointed by this, but i do not need to run any further against windmills
that showing that there is at last no 100% agreement with the rules.
> But please do not suggest that the current nomcom chair should apply some
> other rules.
I did not do this in my emails so far, and i do not intend to do this.
I have some question about what constitutes a subsidiary wrt. to specific
candidate Nomcom members, but i sent that specifically to the nomcom chair.
Cheers
Toerless
> 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
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
