> > Brian, given that you have the list of people, is it an easy thing to > > run through the Venn diagram and tell us if RFC8989 had any effect? > > Not for me. Robert Sparks has access to current data, and there are good > privacy reasons why the data aren't open. (I had them as a special case while > drafting RFC8989.) This discussion is what RFC8989 calls for in order to decide what to do in the future. The IESG is tasked with driving that discussion once the NomCom membership is finalized. One useful data point for that discussion is the following: In the *current* state of the list (now at 117 eligible volunteers), RFC8989's Path #1 (basically, attendance, as we've used up to now) is what qualifies all but 3. Those 3 are all qualified via Path 3 and Path 2 is superfluous as it shows up only when either Path 1 or 3 already show up. The point is that Path 1 qualifies upwards of 97% of the volunteers. Judging from this, RFC8989 hasn't had a significant effect on the composition of the volunteer pool for NomCom 2021-2022, with respect to the previous status quo (basically equivalent to path #1). This is merely the data point that was being asked for. It could be that the results could change even if we retained the same Paths 1, 2 and 3 as defined in RFC8989. But that discussion is to happen a bit later (per RFC8989 itself). Gabriel
