If i may bluntly and likely self-serving (given how it looks i may be
of this years NomCom) hijack this thread.
IMHE, _the_ main criteria by which NomCom members judge
candidates is feedback about the candidates from the community.
I hope and think this is much more important for the outcome
than the affiliations of who gets elected into NomCom.
To that end, it would be great if everybody who has an opinion about
NomCom results - yes, that is you reading this email ! ;-) -
will be putting together input to NomCom when the time comes.
Candidate proposals and feedback.
I am saying this because different sponsors may be differently good
in supporting their IETF contributors to do community service in the
IETF, all the way from top leadership, WG-chairs reviewers down to NomCom.
This especially applies to smaller, even just one-person self-employed
contributors ("hmm, do i really want this employee MySelf to spend
time on this process/community thing... nah, let's not").
Aka: there is participation bias all around the organization for many
reasons, many of them good or otherwise necessary, but some biases are
IMHO just so irrelevant compared to others. Like NomCom member company
affiliation stats bias vs. NomCom input stats bias.
Now, where do i ask for the next click for IETF112 registration:
( ) I promise to provide feedback for NomCom.
(half kidding).
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 12:28:40PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I'm agreeing with Deborah here... and also agreeing with many people that I
> would like to see more diversity in the pool.
>
> First: As someone who has volunteered for this NomCom, and who is from
> Futurewei, I have to make this really clear:
> There was no push within the company for people to volunteer, and I'm not
> aware of any push within Huawei for it either. And I can *certainly* say
> that there has been no thought that we can game the system by putting in a
> lot of volunteers.
>
> The point here is that people are being asked to volunteer, and there's
> some set of people who take that very seriously and eagerly volunteer.
> Some of this could be company culture, some could be national culture, and
> some could simply be individual senses of responsibility. Certainly the
> company culture part includes giving support to volunteers for the time and
> work they will be committing. This comes from a genuine desire to serve
> the community for the good of the Internet.
>
> We should be applauding individuals who volunteer, and companies who
> support them in that... not laying suspicion on their motives. We *ask*
> people to volunteer. We're sad that we don't have *more* volunteers. We
> need to encourage it, not discourage it, and we certainly need to not say
> that if you work for a particular company we don't want to see you
> volunteering. Doesn't everyone see how wrong that would be?
>
> I actually like JCK's idea about an initial phase that culls the pool when
> there are certain affiliations that are overrepresented in it. I'd love to
> try that for the next NomCom cycle. I also support extending the volunteer
> period and actively trying to get more volunteers, but I'm not sure how
> effective it'll be.
>
> RFC 8713 says these:
>
> 4.1. Timeline
>
> The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members
> of the NomCom is due within three months.
>
> The completion of the selection and organization process is due at
> least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the NomCom is
> fully operational and available for interviews and consultation
> during the Third IETF.
>
> 4.12. Milestones
>
> The Chair must establish and announce milestones for the selection of
> the NomCom members.
>
> Section 4.1 seems to prevent pushing out the process any further, alas.
> Section 4.12 isn't clear about whether the milestones can be changed after
> the Chair announces them. I, at least, would prefer to be flexible here,
> under the "do the right thing" principle.
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 4:43 PM BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Unthreading this thread a bit -
> > (and no negatives to Stephen's and Mike's deduction - it has kicked off a
> > very timely discussion)
> >
> > Looking at the list, I don't necessarily see this as "gaming". Especially
> > the "41" - most of these volunteers are in the routing area and are very
> > active. Maybe it's the routing area that "games the system" - we do send
> > out reminders to our working groups. Do we care more about the IESG than
> > other areas? Maybe we do - especially in selecting the sec ADs - famous
> > for giving us "bad days"😊 Some say, it's a question of "having the time",
> > saying big companies are more supportive. Personally, I don't think so, can
> > ask others, but no one gets comp time for this.
> >
> > My real concern is not so much on this pool - I hope they are acting as
> > individuals in the best interests for IETF. And thank them for
> > volunteering, especially during this time, when they are "deer in the
> > headlights".
> >
> > My real concern is that we have a good pool of candidates for the
> > positions to be filled - often we have to "beg" people to volunteer.
> > Hopefully this year will be different?
> >
> > A virtual cheer to Stephen and Mike and hope one day it will be in-person,
> > Cheers,
> > Deborah
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 7:42 PM
> > To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom
> >
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > On 26/06/2021 00:03, Michael StJohns wrote:
> > > Hi - No challenges, but an observation or two.
> > >
> > > There are only 6 companies with more than two volunteers:
> > >
> > > Cisco - 7Â (6.3% of the pool, 47% chance of having at least one member,
> > > 12.6% of having 2).
> > > Juniper - 9 (8% of the pool, 57% chance of having at least one member,
> > > 18.9% of having 2)
> > > Ericsson - 4 (3.6%, 30.5%, 4.7%)
> > > ZTE - 3 (2.7%, 23.8%, 2.8%)
> > > Akamai - 3 (2.7%, 23.8%, 2.8%)
> > > Huawei/Futurewei - 41 (36.6, 99%, 93%)
> >
> > Yeah. The last line above smacks of gaming a system within
> > the rules. I thought more companies did that TBH;-(
> >
> > One other observation: I expected the "click here" in the
> > tracker to increase the size of the pool, but it doesn't seem
> > to have had that effect. Maybe it needs another year though,
> > as it was announced fairly close to the deadline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A SWAG against that numbers suggests a Nomcom with 2 members from
> > > Huawai/Futurewei, 1-2 members from Cisco and Juniper (not each, total)
> > > and a 60% chance of having at least 1 member from one of Ericsson,
> > > Akamai or ZTE.
> > >
> > > 2 person companies represent (each) 1.8% of the pool, have a 16.5%
> > > chance of having at least one member, and have a 1.3% chance of having
> > > two.
> > >
> > > The numbers are not exact because of the organizational limit factor -
> > > e.g. individuals and 2 party companies (totalling 112-67 or 45)Â are
> > > roughly competing for the slots (4-6 slots at a guess) not won by these
> > > 5, which gives those folk individually a 8.3% to 11.9% chance of
> > > selection depending on the number of slots available.
> > >
> > > For an illustration of what affect the organizational limits have on the
> > > final composition of the Nomcom, without the limits, or with higher
> > > ones, Huawei/Futurewei would have a 77% chance of 3 or more members, aÂ
> > > 53% chance of 4 or more members and a 28.5% chance of 5 or more. Â
> > > That suggests that due to the limits, in this selection process at least
> > > 2 or more volunteers will be selected randomly and discarded due to
> > > there already being 2 selectees from that group.
> > >
> > > Yours statistically, Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/25/2021 4:46 PM, NomCom Chair 2021 wrote:
> > >> This is a preliminary list of 112 qualified volunteers for NomCom
> > >> 2021-2022.
> > >>
> > >> All have been qualified by using the Datatracker as qualified for the
> > >> position of voting
> > >> member of NomCom per RFC 8989.
> > >>
> > >> We now enter the challenge period, which lasts until the following
> > >> deadline:
> > >>
> > >> Monday, July 5, 2021 at 23:59 UTC (Deadline for raising issues on the
> > >> qualified volunteers list)
> > >>
> > >> If anyone thinks that a name on the numbered list below is NOT
> > >> qualified for some
> > >> reason, please send me email before this deadline at:
> > >>
> > >> nomcom-chair-2021 at ietf dot org
> > >>
> > >> The next steps are listed on https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2021/
> > >> (e.g., I will announce
> > >> random seed selections for the RFC 3797 process shortly).
> > >>
> > >> The preliminary qualified volunteers are:
> > >>
> > >> Num Last Name First Name Affiliation
> > >> ===================================================================
> > >> 1 Aelmans Melchior Juniper Networks
> > >> 2 Bagdonas Ignas Equinix
> > >> 3 Banks Sarah Corelight, Inc.
> > >> 4 Barnes Mary Independent
> > >> 5 Beeram Vishnu Juniper Networks
> > >> 6 Benamar Nabil Moulay Ismail
> > >> University of Meknes, Morocco
> > >> 7 Bertola Vittorio Open-Xchange
> > >> 8 Bishop Mike Akamai
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 9 Bonica Ron Juniper Networks
> > >> 10 Box Chris BT
> > >> 11 Burdet LucAndré Cisco
> > >> 12 Bush Randy IIJ Research
> > >> Lab & Arrcus Inc
> > >> 13 Busi Italo Huawei
> > >> 14 Chen Mach Huawei
> > >> 15 Chen Huaimo Futurewei
> > >> 16 Cheng Weiqiang China Mobile
> > >> 17 Ciavaglia Laurent Rakuten
> > >> 18 Clemm Alexander Futurewei
> > >> 19 Dhody Dhruv Huawei
> > >> 20 Dong Jie Huawei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 21 Drake John Juniper Networks
> > >> 22 Eastlake Donald Futurewei
> > >> Technologies, Inc
> > >> 23 Eckel Charles Cisco Systems
> > >> 24 Eckert Toerless Futurewei USA
> > >> 25 Enghardt Theresa Netflix
> > >> 26 Fan Dawei Huawei
> > >> 27 Farrell Stephen Trinity
> > >> College Dublin
> > >> 28 Fioccola Giuseppe Huawei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 29 Fomin Sergey Nokia
> > >> 30 Fossati Thomas Arm
> > >> 31 Geng Xuesong Huawei
> > >> 32 Gondwana Bron Fastmail Pty Ltd
> > >> 33 Gu Yunan Huawei
> > >> 34 Gundavelli Sri Cisco
> > >> 35 Haas Jeffrey Juniper Networks
> > >> 36 Haddad Wassim Ericsson
> > >> 37 Hallam-Baker Phillip Threshold
> > >> Secrets LLC
> > >> 38 Harrison Tom APNIC
> > >> 39 Hegde Shraddha Juniper Networks
> > >> 40 Heitz Jakob Cisco Systems,
> > >> Inc.
> > >> 41 Hopps Christian LabN Consulting
> > >> 42 Housley Russ Vigil
> > >> Security, LLC
> > >> 43 Huitema Christian Private
> > >> Octopus Inc.
> > >> 44 Iannone Luigi Huawei
> > >> 45 Jimenez Jaime Ericsson
> > >> 46 Lear Eliot Cisco Systems
> > >> 47 Leiba Barry Futurewei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 48 Lemon Ted Apple
> > >> 49 Li Cheng Huawei
> > >> 50 Li Richard Futurewei
> > >> Technologies, Inc.
> > >> 51 Li Yizhou Huawei
> > >> 52 Lin Yi Huawei
> > >> Technologies Co., Ltd.
> > >> 53 Liu Bing Huawei
> > >> Technologies Co.,Ltd.
> > >> 54 Lou Zhe Huawei
> > >> Technologies Duesseldorf GmbH
> > >> 55 Maisonneuve Julien Nokia
> > >> 56 Makhijani Kiran Futurewei
> > >> 57 Mankin Allison Salesforce
> > >> 58 Masinter Larry Interlisp.org
> > >> 59 Mattsson John Ericsson
> > >> 60 McManus Patrick Fastly
> > >> 61 Michaelson George APNIC
> > >> 62 Min Xiao ZTE Corporation
> > >> 63 Mishra Sanjay Verizon
> > >> 64 Mizrahi Tal Huawei
> > >> 65 Moore Keith Network Heretics
> > >> 66 Nottingham Mark Fastly
> > >> 67 Paine Kirsty UK National
> > >> Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)
> > >> 68 Pan Wei Huawei
> > >> 69 Peng Shuping Huawei
> > >> Technologies Co.,Ltd.
> > >> 70 Petit-Huguenin Marc Impedance
> > >> Mismatch LLC
> > >> 71 Pillay-Esnault Padma Independent,
> > >> Amazon
> > >> 72 Qu Yingzhen Futurewei
> > >> Technologies Inc.
> > >> 73 Reid Jim rtfm llp
> > >> 74 Rescorla Eric Mozilla
> > >> 75 Resnick Pete Episteme
> > >> Technology Consulting LLC
> > >> 76 Richardson Michael Sandelman
> > >> Software Works
> > >> 77 Romano Simon University of
> > >> Napoli Federico II
> > >> 78 Rose Kyle Akamai
> > >> Technologies, Inc.
> > >> 79 Saad Tarek Juniper Networks
> > >> 80 Salz Rich Akamai
> > >> 81 Sangli Srihari Juniper Networks
> > >> 82 Schwartz Benjamin Google LLC
> > >> 83 Song Haoyu Futurewei
> > >> 84 StJohns Michael NthPermutation
> > >> Security
> > >> 85 Thubert Pascal Cisco Systems
> > >> 86 Trøan Ole cisco
> > >> 87 Tschofenig Hannes Arm
> > >> 88 Velvindron Loganaden cyberstorm.mu
> > >> 89 Volpato Paolo Huawei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 90 Wang Haibo Huawei
> > >> 91 Wang Yali Huawei
> > >> 92 Wei Yuehua ZTE Corporation
> > >> 93 Weiler Samuel W3C/MIT
> > >> 94 Westerlund Magnus Ericsson
> > >> 95 Winters Timothy QA Cafe
> > >> 96 Woolf Suzanne Public
> > >> Interest Registry (.ORG)
> > >> 97 Wu Bo Huawei
> > >> Technologies Co.,Ltd.
> > >> 98 Xiao XiPeng Huawei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 99 Xie Jingrong Huawei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 100 Xingjian He huawei
> > >> 101 Yan Gang Huawei
> > >> 102 Yang Fan Huawei
> > >> Technologies Co.,Ltd.
> > >> 103 Yu Yolanda Huawei
> > >> 104 Zhang Lixia UCLA
> > >> 105 Zhang Zheng ZTE
> > >> 106 Zhang Zhaohui Juniper
> > >> 107 Zhao Shuai Tencent
> > >> 108 Zheng Guangying Huawei
> > >> 109 Zheng Haomian Huawei
> > >> Technologies
> > >> 110 Zhou Tianran Huawei
> > >> 111 Zhuang Shunwan Huawei
> > >> 112 江元龙 Huawei
> > >> Technologies Co., Ltd.
> > >>
> > >
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
