g_e_montenegro=40yahoo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
I'm not surprised here. Thanks for posting this...
To recap for readers:
Path 1: 3/5
Path 2: WG chair
Path 3: listed author/editor
> 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).
The thing we need to know is, of the people who were qualified by path 1, 2,
or 3, why they did not in fact volunteer?
I think that working backwards from who volunteers doesn't help us figure out
how to get more volunteers.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
