On 6/27/2021 5:25 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
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.)
I agree.
I actually disagree. This is about setting the pool. Unlike things
like deciding to re-select the members or suggesting that if a Huawei
member is ineligible, then the appropriate replacement is another Huawei
member, (see many discussions in prior years), increasing the pool
*might* decrease Huawei/Futurewei's opportunity to get members, but the
probabilities of that are pretty small.
Right now, 6 companies own 67/112 of the pool and will probably get
about 4-6 members. The pool (112) is smaller than I remember in any of
the last 5-10 years (anecdotal rather than actually checking the data).
It would be good to try and increase the pool back to previous levels
near 160+.
> 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.
I think that the best way to "push" is where it goes through company internal email
from the CTO or whomever pays for IETF attendance.
I wonder if some people volunteer, hoping that it will mean that they'll
"have" to travel to IETF.
That may be the case. Which may explain the size of the pool.
Mike
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
