At 09:42 AM 6/27/2013, Eliot Lear wrote: >On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> >> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of >> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so >> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control). >> > >It's already in RFC 3777. No more than 2 per company. But that's still problematic. The current rules basically give any company who provides >= 30% of the Nomcom volunteer pool an ~85.1% chance of having 2 members (sum of all percentages from 2-10 members), a 12.1% chance of having 1 and a 2.8% chance of having 0. I believe the proposal as stated would further exacerbate that problem - not for a given company, but for pretty much locking small companies and individuals out of the Nomcom. Once scenario for this - both benign intentions and non-benign - is that a company instead of sending one person to all the meetings starts rotating the opportunity to attend the IETF among a number of people - say 5. So instead of the potential of say 30 volunteers from one company, we now suddenly have 150. And me with my single person consultancy - still only has 1 slot to volunteer. While it would be good to have more people involved, it would be bad in the ways in which larger companies could game the system. So - I'm not a big fan of the proposal without a lot more analysis of the unintended consequences - and there WILL be unintended consequences. Mike