Re: Substantial nomcom procedure updates (Was: Re: Consolidating BCP 10 (Operation of the NomCom))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]