On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ted Hardie
<ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Donald Eastlake
<d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Ted Hardie
<ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
We need all the volunteers we can get.
I think that's nonsense and typical of the fixation in recent years on
maximizing the quantity of nomcom volunteers with little apparent
concern for their level of interest. As far as I can tell, the nomcom
worked fine in its early years when there commonly less than 50
volunteers.
Burnout risk alone should tell you it isn't nonsense, even if you care
absolutely nothing about the diversity of volunteers available to NomCom.
Ah, burnout! Thanks for bringing up this point which supports my position.
I'd been thinking that the only significant harm of the annual
drum-banging to get more volunteers and all the wailing and gnashing
of teeth if, say, there are "only 70" volunteers, was arm-twisting
people who aren't that involved or interested into volunteering. (And
I have evidence to support this in that there was usually one
"deadbeat" voting member, who did very little, on nomcoms in which I
was involved.) But, of course, it is also a significant harm that it
may cause people to volunteer who are burnt out and otherwise would
refrain. You know, there is a reason they are called *volunteers*.
Lets say there were 50 qualified volunteers each year. If someone
volunteered every year, they'd only serve one in five on average,
which doesn't sound too bad to me, and if/when they actually serve
they don't have to volunteer again until they are ready to. In fact,
for years (I just checked the past three), the volunteer pool has been
running around 100 people. I just don't see how involuntary burn-out
can possibly be a problem.
Then there is diversity. Sounds fine, but I do not think it would be a
good way to increase diversity by qualifying people who would be, *on
average*, less involved and less widely involved in the IETF.
The NomCom takes time and energy to do well, and if someone cares
enough about the IETF to volunteer it, turning them away because some
of their most recent experience was on day passes is silly. I know at
It's fine if you think the qualification threshold should be a bit
lower than what I think. But to change it, there should be a real WG
process. The criteria is that for 3 out of the last 5 meetings,
qualify to attend for the week, show up and pick up your badge, and
get publicly listed for a while so anyone who thinks you are not
qualified can object. I don't think that should be changed due to an
IAOC experiment.
least two former ADs who attended the last meeting on day passes,
and we have seen others who have not met a 3/5 rule only because
illness forced them to participate remotely. ...
So, do you think that every case should be judged separately and
individually? By who? I think you need a simple, easy to objectively
enforce, bright-line rule.
...
Ted
Thanks,
Donald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf