Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The real point of a working group process is to establish the coalition
of support you need to get the work deployed.
And this has to be taken into account when you are considering votes.
The problem is even bigger when the chair decides to abuse their role.
Deliberate or accidental, the phrasing of the question is known to have
a substantial effect on the outcome of a survey.
It might be useful to have a standard protocol for such questions, e.g.
starting with the question "should we accept this doc as a WG item to go
to proposed standard", many people could be likely to hum 'yes', even
though a preferred outcome is to see the doc before deciding what track
to place it in.
IMO, a scripted set of questions might go a long way to avoiding such
biases (and make WG meetings run more smoothly, as well).
As to a different key point:
Why can't we elect the WG chairs? Why can't we elect the ADs?
When the IETF pays for the 60% (80%, 100%, take your pick) of an AD's
salary, they can elect ADs. Unfortunately, the current system is heavily
biased towards keeping existing ADs - who, like career politicians, can
secure financial support from their employers for continued
participation based on their current position. Perhaps it's time for
term limits ;-)
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ietf mailing list