At 06:49 09-07-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies
that send large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat
distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience. I am sure that
_some_ attendees from large companies are just as partisan as you
fear, but some are not. So I am not convinced that your proposal
would have a good outcome.
I fixed the nomcom-chair-2013 email address as it does not make sense
to send an email to an invalid address.
When designing a random selection a person has to ensure that the
selection is such that the unbiased nature is publicly
verifiable. As John Klensin mentioned "four companies account for
44.3% of the volunteers". A similar question was raised by Sam
Hartman previously. When I looked at the affiliations over the years
I noticed that two companies can easily get 40% of the vote.
The IETF works on the presumption of good faith. Would a significant
number of attendees from large companies adopt a partisan
approach? It's difficult for the public to determine that. I'll
change the question: does anyone believe that the average attendee
from a large company will take a decision which is in the interest of
the IETF Community even though that decision conflicts with what
would be in the interest of the company?
That's not the better question though. What is NomCom about? The
possible answers are not in the RFCs.
Anyway, the initial message was about having a broad pool and doing
an unbiased selection from it. The pool may have less people but it
is broader in the sense that there would be people from all walks of
the IETF. I think that's what Jari Arkko might be referring to when
he writes the word "inclusive".
Regards,
S. Moonesamy