On 30-Jun-21 11:40, Michael Richardson wrote: > > 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. Correct. I can't get past the fact that so few *active* particpants are subscribed here or (more alarmingly) to ietf-announce. One hypothesis is that people who don't care about IETF admin stuff *really* don't care, even if they are active contributors as per paths 2 or 3, so they will never volunteer. Another hypothesis is that we didn't do a good enough spamming job with the call for volunteers. Was there at least one call for volunteers in the inbox of everybody qualified under paths 2 or 3? Anyway, as Gabriel reminded us, this will be followed up after the NomCom is seated. Brian
