Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
    > It would be interesting to take a look at the "large company" pool
    > volunteers over say the past 20 years and figure out a way of giving
    > them an activity factor (e.g. attendee vs contributor) - but finding an
    > objective scale that we could all agree with to assign such activity
    > factor would be difficult.

Agreed.
There is also an interesting scale at which you will get *NO* volunteers
from.  Those are companies just large enough to support an AD or an IAB
member, but not a lot of other in-person participation.  Since you can't
stand for a position if you are on the nomcom, those people won't voluneer.

so, when you do the analysis of activity, you have to also include all the
nominees into the pool.

    > The other number to look at might be the number of attendees
    > (percentage wise) per company per meeting vs number of volunteers
    > (percentage wise) per company per nomcom.  All things being equal I
    > would expect those percentages to be close to identical.

I anecdotally observe that I think that Google has a lower number of
volunteers for a "big" company.

    > I would
    > expect where the nomcom volunteer percentage exceeds the attendee
    > percentage to maybe be indicative of a desire by the company to place
    > members on the Nomcom.

It would also be useful to take, rather than attendance, instead, draft
authorship for the numerator.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on 
rails    [






--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature