Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It would be interesting to take a look at the "large company" pool
> volunteers over say the past 20 years and figure out a way of giving
> them an activity factor (e.g. attendee vs contributor) - but finding an
> objective scale that we could all agree with to assign such activity
> factor would be difficult.
Agreed.
There is also an interesting scale at which you will get *NO* volunteers
from. Those are companies just large enough to support an AD or an IAB
member, but not a lot of other in-person participation. Since you can't
stand for a position if you are on the nomcom, those people won't voluneer.
so, when you do the analysis of activity, you have to also include all the
nominees into the pool.
> The other number to look at might be the number of attendees
> (percentage wise) per company per meeting vs number of volunteers
> (percentage wise) per company per nomcom. All things being equal I
> would expect those percentages to be close to identical.
I anecdotally observe that I think that Google has a lower number of
volunteers for a "big" company.
> I would
> expect where the nomcom volunteer percentage exceeds the attendee
> percentage to maybe be indicative of a desire by the company to place
> members on the Nomcom.
It would also be useful to take, rather than attendance, instead, draft
authorship for the numerator.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature