On 6/27/2021 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not against significant changes. I'm just against significant
changes on the fly during the current year's process.
It's a fair point, but you seem to argue against that point in your
following paragraph.
Judging by the model we used to justify
RFC8989, it seems to me there are probably several hundred people
who may well not realise that they are eligible or even that the
call for volunteers went out.
This is the first Nomcom with "new" eligibility criteria. Increasing or
repeating the outreach for Nomcom members does not seem unwarranted, nor
a "significant change on the fly".
I'm not advocating for changing the lottery process, but I have no
problems with spending a bit more time on the process of creating the
lottery pool given how small the pool is this year relative to previous
years. That smaller pool suggests a structural failure in outreach
related to the changes in the eligibility criteria.
Mike
Having looked again at BCP10, I do agree that the NomCom Chair has the
power to re-open the call for volunteers for a week or so, but that
doesn't seem worth doing without a mail shot to everybody that
the code deems to be eligible. Judging by the model we used to justify
RFC8989, it seems to me there are probably several hundred people
who may well not realise that they are eligible or even that the
call for volunteers went out. Remember we have *lots* of participants
who are not on the general lists.
Brian
