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]

 



Given that we are talking about dynamics of people, controlling the outcome of the nomcom process with 6 folks, even if those 6 folks were actually to cooperate, is very dependent upon who they are, who the other 4 are, who the liaisons and chair are, etc.

Rumor claims that on occaison two people who did not even have a vote had more influence than any sitting members. I believe practice has changed to reduce that particular problem.

I do grant that consistent excessive representation from large corporations could be a problem. If we want to re-open 3777 for substantive change, I can live with a change to 1 person per corporation. I think that the potential benefits from such would probably out-weight the drawbacks.

However, it is not at all clear to me that the benefits of reopening 3777 for substantive change outweigh the VERY large costs of such an activity.

As an example of the complications, we would presumably have to discuss your alternative selection process proposal. Which would involve looking at the perverse incentives on the corporations to control their participation in the pool, and to self-select who they want to see standing. Ouch.

And from experiences we all have been through, I would stronglye xpect even more complex and difficult discussions if we open the document up to substantive changes.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/16/14, 1:52 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
...

Actually, it's worse than that.  The number is 3 companies to get 6 slots.  At that point, those three companies control the outcome of the Nomcom.  Of course, being too obvious will result in interesting backlash.







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