Hi John,
Thank you for explaining why things were done in such a way.
At 04:00 PM 01-10-2018, John C Klensin wrote:
More precisely, it is, at least AFAIK, the only easily-measured
factor in the rules other than the basic "Nomcom eligibility"
ones.
Was antitrust law a consideration?
First, the Nomcom membership was expected to represent a random
sample of IETF participants. At least implicitly, part of that
IETF Management has been using "attendees" and "participants"
interchangeably over the years. Did anyone from Management compare
participants versus attendees over the years?
There were comments on the thread about reviewing I-Ds. The
statistics focus on RFC authorship. If participation is measured in
terms of authorship, it does not make sense to perform reviews except
if there is commercial value in performing that work.
involvement for many months. That, in turn, biases the pool
toward people who have unlimited time to devote to the IETF, who
do not have significant other IETF responsibilities (e.g., for
technical work, as WG Chairs, etc.), and, for people with
significant organizational/employer commitments, whose
organizations are willing to support Nomcom-type work.
Based on the description for IAOC positions I would say that the
committee does not do technical work. Is there be a perception that
there is an unwritten requirement about the country of residence to
be eligible?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
