> Except that the IESG members select the wg chairs, which makes your baseline > stastistic suspect; it's too easy for all sorts of biasing factors to sway the > allocation of wg chair positions.
Mike actually mentioned that. Let's assume a simplified curriculum of participant -> author/editor -> WG chair -> IESG, which more or less reflects increasing seniority in the IETF. We may suspect that there is bias that, at each step, privileges some candidates over others. However, the mechanisms are different at each step. Self-selection, selection by WG chair, selection by the nom com. It makes sense to assess the filtering effect of each step independently, and in particular to assess the nomcom by comparing the pool of WG chairs to the selected nominees. -- Christian Huitema
