I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization.
World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually
agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views
were widespread within it.
Much to the frustration of other members of the Major Organization.
And the members of the working group.
This suggests that we can't produce viable committees _anyway_.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker [dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: 09 July 2013 21:53
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: nomcom-chair-2013(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Should we consider changing it to "not more than one" in view
of today's data?
On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule.
However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the
IETF so reliant on a tiny number of companies that we cannot produce
viable committees if we require each member of a committee to be
affiliated with a different company?
In other words, are we really incapable of requiring extensive corporate
diversity?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net