Just some factual observations: Last year we had 135 volunteers, under the temporary criteria of RFC8788, which were basically the traditional criteria but set back by one meeting, i.e. physical attendance at 3 of IETFs 102, 103, 104, 105, and 106. This year we have 112 volunteers, under the experimental criteria of RFC8989. Those are a) registered attendance at 3 of IETFs 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110. OR b) being a recent WG Chair or Secretary or RFC author. Thus, we got fewer volunteers despite substantially broadening the criteria to include many more people. This requires some reflection, but we can't arbitrarily change the mandated schedule. Regards Brian Carpenter On 27-Jun-21 07:39, John C Klensin wrote: > FWIW, +1 > > On the one hand, I'm pleased that several organizations will > give multiple of their employees the time and, where relevant, > resource to participate. On the other, the alternative to > broadening the diversity of the pool would be to create a new > rule, e.g., that anyone on the Nomcom from a given company must > be completely isolated from the process of considering any > candidate from the same company (or, perhaps, its close > affiliates). > > john > > > --On Saturday, June 26, 2021 08:05 +0100 Stewart Bryant > <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This has provided a statistical basis for my conclusion on >> initially seeing this list. I imagine I am not alone. >> >> This Nomcom volunteer pool is insufficiently diverse. >> >> I think the chair needs to extend the time to volunteer and >> encourage a more diverse pool. >> >> Normally the timeline is set by a need to physically meet at >> the summer IETF, but that does not apply this year so there is >> more time to make the selection. > >
