> > Noting that I agree with Brian that trying to make a change of > this nature (as distinct from extending the sign-up window and > stimulating people to volunteer) is too much to try to do on the > fly (and hence for this year)... Definitely agree. I was thinking about where we want to be in a couple of years… >> Easy: randomly (*) select 10 companies (clusters) making up >> the nomcom, and then randomly select one volunteer from each >> company. >> >> Let's see how well this process proposal goes :-) > >> (*) OK, you get to choose the exact way this randomness works, >> and that may include weighting by number of volunteers. So we >> may still have a way to make sure there is enough big-company >> representation in the nomcom. > > This strikes me as a terrible idea. While, for a variety of > reasons, I can't volunteer (at least without dropping all other > IETF work for the duration), there are still some of us who > really are individual participants with no company affiliation. These are then clusters of 1. > At least without making it horribly complicated, the method you > suggest would almost certainly either keep them off the Nomcom > or keep employees of many companies off. What you are > proposing, as I understand it, would basically determine which > 10 companies get to do determine the future of the IETf in a > given cycle, an even worse option from a diversity standpoint > than what we have today. Well, today we have 6, my method would turn it into 10. A different way to imagine my method (the weighted variant): Put a square cm of paper on a blackboard for each eligible attendee. Throw a random dart. If that hit an eligible, take off the eligible and all other people of their company. Repeat until you have hit ten. The eligibles you have hit are the nomcom. Yeah, pretty much like the current scheme, but with N=1 instead of N=2. Grüße, Carsten
