On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjo...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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.
Agree with all of your points Mike. --dmm > > 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 > >
