On 15/09/2014 22:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Jari,
On 16/09/2014 09:32, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
With respect to 5 - the text in 3777 is that the selection process should be fair - which is defined to mean: "
A method is fair if
each eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected."
That definition is already broken in that we cap the number of nomcom
members from any given company at 2 - which means that anyone in a large
company already has a lesser chance of selection then that represented by
his portion of the volunteer pool.
I think we benefit from diversity of opinion, and even more from diversity of experience. I'm concerned that the Nomcom has been at times rather over populated with large company representatives with a related narrowing of the experience pool.
I’d argue that 2 out of 10 is not necessarily a big problem. But are you concerned about that, or are you concerned there might be cases where closely associated entities can circumvent the limit of 2, or are you concerned that the nomcom volunteers to a too large extent consists of commercial vendors?
The worst case, which is not a fantasy, is that 5 large companies encourage
their staff to volunteer, so we end up with 5 pairs of large-company
staff and nobody from the rest of the community. But (as Mike seems to
imply) if we put in rules to make this impossible, we'd be even further
from "each eligible volunteer is equally likely to be selected."
So this does need clarity of intent, one way or the other.
Brian
It would be useful to run the stats to see how close we have ever come
to that. The affiliations are not on the site so it's difficult to do a
quick check. My recollection is that we have never seen worse than 2+2,
and that does not happen every year.
- Stewart