I like your analysis. A comment while I am still "warm"
The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".
(snip)
The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last call
or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants from the
mailing list, and then asks for a review or commentary. So 5 folks off the
mailing list are directly asked for their opinion, without regard to
preconceived notions of the chairs about who would be a good reviewer. If
someone declines, the tool would select a new random person to fill out.
The working group as a whole thus gets a chance to understand someone's
technical viewpoint, without that person having to fit within one of the
established human networks.
I like the second approach since it seems simpler to implement and it
does not involve a new human "structure." Since we believe in running
code, we could try the second approach and see how it works. We
should fix the setup in advance (duration, metrics, ...), but you
already know that. It seems to me that it would require just a handful
of line of codes and little more.
I would also suggest that with the second approach the selected
reviewer could have been given a chance to say "no," because sometime
you could not have the time to do that. Of course, if someone says
"no" too often, that already is a hint... ;-)
Regards,
Riccardo
There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and I
discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may
help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this
need not be quotas. It should be a better environment for all of our
volunteers.
best regards,
Ted Hardie