On 9/16/2014 9:40 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > 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. I'll suggest that past statistics aren't all that relevant. The issue is the sampling model and its potential for problematic outcomes. A design that permits 5 companies to /ever/ fully populate the Nomcom is a flawed design. d/ ps. It's worth applying that same analysis approach to questions of competence. No matter how bright or well-intentioned everyone might be, would Nomcom be competent if all of its members only met the minimum selection criteria and, for example, /no/ member of Nomcom had /any/ experience actually participating in a working group, writing any RFCs, or chairing any WGs? The current rules permit that outcome. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net