ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers

2013-07-09 16:48:34
At 06:49 09-07-2013, Ted Lemon 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.

I fixed the nomcom-chair-2013 email address as it does not make sense to send an email to an invalid address.

When designing a random selection a person has to ensure that the selection is such that the unbiased nature is publicly verifiable. As John Klensin mentioned "four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers". A similar question was raised by Sam Hartman previously. When I looked at the affiliations over the years I noticed that two companies can easily get 40% of the vote.

The IETF works on the presumption of good faith. Would a significant number of attendees from large companies adopt a partisan approach? It's difficult for the public to determine that. I'll change the question: does anyone believe that the average attendee from a large company will take a decision which is in the interest of the IETF Community even though that decision conflicts with what would be in the interest of the company?

That's not the better question though. What is NomCom about? The possible answers are not in the RFCs.

Anyway, the initial message was about having a broad pool and doing an unbiased selection from it. The pool may have less people but it is broader in the sense that there would be people from all walks of the IETF. I think that's what Jari Arkko might be referring to when he writes the word "inclusive".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy