--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 13:49 +0000 Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by
companies that send large number of attendees are robots to be
somewhat distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience.
I am sure that _some_ attendees from large companies are just
as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am not
convinced that your proposal would have a good outcome.
It was _not_ a proposal, merely an analysis of the numbers and
an exploration of alternatives.
I also didn't say "robots" or anything that could be reasonably
construed as robots. I don't even have any experience that
would lead to expect that a company would expect any selected
Nomcom members to march in lockstep.
I do note that the "no more than two people with the same
primary affiliation" rule is part of RFC 3777 (BCP 10) and take
that as an indication that the community was unhappy with at
least the appearances of one company having more than 1/5 of
Nomcom voting membership. That limit is not part of any
proposal I or, to my knowledge, others have made recently. With
regard to that limit, my analysis is merely an exploration of
how the intent of that rule might best be satisfied.
I'd welcome a discussion of whether the analysis is correct or
not. You might reasonably believe that it is irrelevant. But,
as far as disagreeing with a proposal or not, please wait until
someone makes one (fwiw, it won't be me).
john