Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
I think that we have a happy medium right now.
I want to note that there is a surprising lack of volunteers from a number of
large companies. I would deeply like to have a social scientist compare
IETF registration listed affliations vs nomcom affliations over the years,
and also contrast that with past/future I*, WG chair, and document author lists.
This should also be an input to diversity design team: different
organizations and different people value IETF participation differently, and
in some cases if we want a diversity of people from a diversity of
organizations, we need to be aware of what those internal rewards (or lack
of) are. [my observation is specifically that if you want gender diversity,
it's easier to find it in larger organizations than smaller ones, but the
incentives to participate in IETF may be very perverse in large organizations]
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
pgpvNz4xqFcY_.pgp
Description: PGP signature