On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/15/14 3:55 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Are y'all talking about the input to the nomcom process, or the
output? I don't see anything wrong with more than one candidate per
company putting their name in the hat, but it's probably reasonable
to limit the number of qualified applicants that go into the final
selection process.
[MB] We're talking about the selection of volunteers to serve as voting
members on the nomcom. It's a random selection. The current process is
that if a 3rd volunteer is on the list of 10, the last one selected is
dropped and then whoever ended up in position 11 of the random selection
would become a voting member. [/MB]
Ok, so you're talking about the output.
OTOH, how do you define "a company" in this scenario? Take any of
the large multinationals .... is it fair to eliminate a candidate
because there is another qualified candidate who happens to work at
the same "company," even though they are in different business
units, different states, different countries, or even different
continents?
[MB] Yes, it is a challenge, but it's something we deal with already and
again, we're talking about selection of voting members of the nomcom and
not leadership appointments.
It is equally, if not in fact more important to avoid capture of the nomcom itself.
At this point, it's entirely up to the
nomcom how many appointees from each company are selected - e.g., some
nomcoms decide that the IESG should have at most 2 people from the same
company. Others have decided 3 is okay. [/MB]
... and I think the point that I (and others) are trying to make here is that perhaps it should not be up to the nomcom.
I totally agree with the need to avoid capture of the IETF
leadership, but the problem is a lot harder to solve than you might
think. It may be worthwhile for our folks who are interested in this
topic to have a chat with the ICANN folks about policies and
methodology that are in place there, as avoiding industry capture
has been an important part of their working process since day 1, and
a lot of thought has gone into it.
[MB] I think most of us know how hard the problem is to solve. It's been
plaguing nomcom for years - see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00. The
reality is that large companies can afford to have large numbers of
people participate and attend IETF meetings (and thus qualify as voting
members of nomcom) as well as the ability to fund an employee to do
nearly full time work in leadership positions at the IETF. It's my
understanding is that ICANN solves this problem somewhat by providing
coverage of travel expenses for some of the appointments. That's a big
deal for independent consultants.
[/MB]
That's exactly the kind of NIH response I was hoping I wouldn't see. It would be arrogant in the extreme to assume both that we're totally aware of all of the problems, and that we know how every other organization that faces similar problems solves them. Opening a dialog with ICANN on this topic can only have benefits to both organizations, at the risk of a very small amount of wasted time if nothing useful surfaces. I'm sure that there are other groups out there who it would be worth engaging on this topic, but personally I'm only familiar with ICANN's efforts.
[MB] One final comment since the thread has now reached the typical personal attack/mis-interpret what the other person said without considering that one may have mis-understood mode. Please consider that some people actually don't write emails with anything intended to be read between the lines.
My statement was in no way an NIH response. I stated factually that the issues being discussed are well known and they are challenging. I also noted that ICANN solved part of the problem covering travel expenses. In no way did I make any statement with regards to whether we ought to talk to ICANN. My statement was a response to the fact that you stated the problem was a lot harder to solve than we thought and a simple statement about how ICANN solved part of the problem.
BTW, did you read the document for which I provided a link? It fairly clearly explains some of the issues that are quite relevant to this thread. If haven't read the document then, you ought check Jari Arkko's FB page. He has a posting today that's quite relevant in that case. [/MB]
Doug