At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of
the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so
that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control).
It's already in RFC 3777. No more than 2 per company.
BTW, while I understand the spirit of 3777 on this point, I have
always found the restriction somewhat at odds with our belief (hope?)
that we represent ourselves and the best interest of the Internet at
the IETF.
This is where acculturation comes in. You and I are old hands - we've been
doing this almost too long to remember. This is built into our personal
perception of the IETF. Sadly - I think this attitude has become less and less
prevalent, both in the newer companies that have sent people and in the newer
people. Part of this appears to be a belief that the IETF is exactly like all
the other standards bodies and can be managed/manipulated by throwing people at
it. Given the current buy-in for the nomcom is about $6K per year per person
(based on about a $4K per person direct cost - I don't know how to reasonably
estimate the indirect costs of lost production because of travel if any), that
provides at least a small barrier to entry to that type of manipulation, as
does the acculturation that actually happens if they attend 3/5 meetings.
I really wish the IETF were a group of individuals, but I don't think that's
ever been completely true, and I have then impression its getting to the point
where its not even mostly true.
Mike
In addition, a central ethic (IMO anyway) of the IETF has
always been to honor individualism and independence, so I find it a
bit strange that in the NomCom context we're all just corporate (or
otherwise) drones. All of that said, evidently reality doesn't always
match our ideals, hence clauses like the one you cite from 3777. --dmm