At 09:51 AM 6/27/2013, David Meyer wrote: >On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/27/13 3:34 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> >>> Why not just say directly that 'to prevent "capture", no more than X% of >>> the NomCom may work for a single organization' (where X is 15% or so, so >>> that even if a couple collude, they still can't get control). >>> >> >> It's already in RFC 3777. No more than 2 per company. > >BTW, while I understand the spirit of 3777 on this point, I have >always found the restriction somewhat at odds with our belief (hope?) >that we represent ourselves and the best interest of the Internet at >the IETF.
This is where acculturation comes in. You and I are old hands - we've been doing this almost too long to remember. This is built into our personal perception of the IETF. Sadly - I think this attitude has become less and less prevalent, both in the newer companies that have sent people and in the newer people. Part of this appears to be a belief that the IETF is exactly like all the other standards bodies and can be managed/manipulated by throwing people at it. Given the current buy-in for the nomcom is about $6K per year per person (based on about a $4K per person direct cost - I don't know how to reasonably estimate the indirect costs of lost production because of travel if any), that provides at least a small barrier to entry to that type of manipulation, as does the acculturation that actually happens if they attend 3/5 meetings. I really wish the IETF were a group of individuals, but I don't think that's ever been completely true, and I have then impression its getting to the point where its not even mostly true. Mike >In addition, a central ethic (IMO anyway) of the IETF has >always been to honor individualism and independence, so I find it a >bit strange that in the NomCom context we're all just corporate (or >otherwise) drones. All of that said, evidently reality doesn't always >match our ideals, hence clauses like the one you cite from 3777. --dmm
