Unfortunately, I have to agree with Joel. I too forwarded the email to a list of folks that I really thought should consider volunteering and don't see that had much impact at all.
Mary.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 2:54 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While I agree we probably have the time to reopen it, we can't just
decide to do so. We can't simply change the procedures because we want
to (particularly note when "we" is some vocal subset of the community.)
As far as I can tell from the rules we have adopted, we have to leave
the rules as written and run the selection. Meanwhile, we would have to
race to write an I-D, get community rough consensus on it, and get it
approved by the IESG, all before the random number selection that is
mandated (since otherwise we would be changing the random result AFTER
knowing it.) Given our history for process changes of any kind, I just
don't see it. (I am not even sure the various mandatory time lines
would permit it.)
Look folks, I am not happy with the lack of diversity. But the solution
to that was to get folks to volunteer. I didn't push as hard as I
should have. Probably because I do not htink chair pushing helps much.
But I did forward the announcement to remind folks. To all three of my
working groups. I doubt it mattered.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/27/2021 2:27 PM, Andrew Campling wrote:
> +1
>
> Re-opening the volunteering window for a week or two would seem like a
> reasonable step to take – if the numbers don’t change then that’s on us
> and not the organisations of the current pool of volunteers.
>
> Andrew
>
> *From:*Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* 27 June 2021 16:25
> *To:* Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc:* Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Stewart Bryant
> <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom
>
> +1 to Michael's point. We've had the most diverse nomcoms when the pool
> has been over 200. I'd like to see the volunteering reopened
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:18 Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto: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 mostly agree.
>
> I don't have numbers for years before last, but my recollection is
> that it's
> usually closer to 200, often a bit over.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't know if that's the right thing to do, and I'm not convinced that
> we'll get more volunteers this way. But, I don't really object to
> trying.
>
> --
> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT
> architect [
> ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.sandelman.ca/ <http://www.sandelman.ca/> | ruby
> on rails [
>
