--On Monday, June 28, 2021 07:14 +0200 Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> 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. Carsten, First, I like your second explanation more than I understood the first -- I had taken "company" to mean somewhat more than you intended. However, it still has the problem of allowing an organization to guarantee itself at least one Nomcom seat (even if not two) by packing the pool while individual participants and companies with fewer resources got squeezed out (even if less squeezed out by setting N+1) and diversity goes down. Whether that is a good idea depends on what problems we are trying to solve. And, with that and in the interest of getting other work done, I'm going to drop out of this conversation until there is an I-D, BOF or WG request, or equivalent on the table. best, john
