Subject: Re: am i the only one...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:16:35 -0400

With apoligies to Don Eastlake - this is actually NOT a topic for the new
nomcom procedures group as it deals with current procedures and lack of
volunteers.

Stephen - as far as I know the "strict" requirements are that you have
attended two of the last three meetings and are not currently either an IESG
or IAB member.  Given that somewhere on the order of 2000 people attend each
meeting I would be  surprised if there were less than 1200 eligible.  In fact,
just looking at the attendence lists for Minn and Salt Lake reveals over a 120
eligibles in the first 3% of the combined list (I took the lists, deleted
everything but the email addresses, concatenated them and sorted then looked
for duplicate addresses).  

I served on one nomcom, chaired one and advised one - I'd like to think that I
made a difference.  I want to echo Eliot 59 volunteers IS puny  If you want to
have an effect on the IETF, volunteer to help choose the IAB and IETF.  As it
stands right now, you've only got a one in six chance of actually having to do
anything and isn't that a reasonable risk to be able to say "stop bothering me
- I volunteered already"?

With respect to the person who was complaining about US centric
teleconferences - two of the three noncoms I was on had a member from
Australia.  We arranged the telecons to try and avoid having anyone have to be
awake at 2am local time...

Mike

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:53:43 -0500 Stephen Sprunk <[email-masked]> wrote:

Thus spake "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
> ... who thinks that 59 volunteers for NONCOM is pretty puny?  If you're
> truly not interested in the future of the IETF I suppose you oughtn't
> send your name in.  Otherwise, why aren't you volunteering?

59 out of how many elligible?  The criteria to volunteer are pretty strict,
not
to mention the stuff selectees actually have to *do*.

S

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:18:42 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

    Given that somewhere on the order of 2000 people attend each meeting
    I would be surprised if there were less than 1200 eligible.  In
    fact, just looking at the attendence lists for Minn and Salt Lake
    reveals over a 120 eligibles in the first 3% of the combined list (I
    took the lists, deleted everything but the email addresses,
    concatenated them and sorted then looked for duplicate addresses).

I looked in the Poised archives for the last set of statistics, which
have been done twice: August 1997 and September 2000.

The results were formatted differently and I chose to just cut-and-paste
here rather than try to clean it up:

August 1997

1115 Attended at least 2 of the meetings in  Memphis   San Jose  Montreal
1021 Attended at least 2 of the meetings in  San Jose  Montreal  LA
848  Attended at least 2 of the meetings in  Montreal  LA        Dallas
680  Attended at least 2 of the meetings in  LA        Dallas    Stockholm

September 2000

    Number of potential Nomcom volunteers for the 43rd-45th Meeting: 1413
    Number of potential Nomcom volunteers for the 44th-46th Meeting: 1480
    Number of potential Nomcom volunteers for the 45th-47th Meeting: 1250
    Number of potential Nomcom volunteers for the 46th-48th Meeting: 1463

Interpretation is left to the reader.

Jim

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:46:54 -0700

Thanks Mike and Don.

The point of my initial message was NOT to shame those who were ALREADY 
volunteering their time in a substantial way, such as being on the IAB 
or the IESG.  Nor was I really targeting those who don't qualify to 
serve on NOMCOM.

As to folks such as Rob Elz & Vern Schryver who can't participate in 
person at the meetings but do participate online, it's important for 
them to continue to participate online by communicating their views of 
the leadership to the NOMCOM.

My point is simply this: there has been a lot of noise at IETF meetings 
and on the mailing list about how this or that is not managed well. 
Whether you think things run well or not, if you've participated in the 
IETF it's important that you help the group determine its own fate. 
Assuming that others will do the job for you is A Very Bad Idea.

Now as I wrote, 2 hours per week is a lot of time.  But to mutilate a 
common bumper sticker, if you think good leadership is expensive, try bad.

Regards,

Eliot

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:31:08 -0700

> Assuming that others will do the job for you is A Very Bad Idea.

Assuming that structural defects will be fixed through personnel changes is
also A Very Bad Idea.

> common bumper sticker, if you think good leadership is

To use another trite catch-phrase, "Been there, done that".