When the IETF pays for the 60% (80%, 100%, take your pick) of an
AD's salary, they can elect ADs.
Funding of candidates isn't the issue.
I disagree; short of funding candidates or reducing the workload (the
latter, IMO, would be more appropriate), the list of willing candidates is
a significant part of the problem.
You were tieing funding to that ability to have a formal voting process.
That's what I was/am disagreeing with.
However, here you are citing factors that might affect the nature and size of
the pool of candidates and I *completely* agree with you, including what is
the preferred change.
The problem with voting is that the IETF does not have a membership
list, so there is no real basis for running a "vote". The nomcom
process is intended as a surrogate, randomly selecting motivated
That is a kind of a voting process.
Formally, sure. However discussions in the IETF, about "voting" always use it
to mean "by the plenary", ie, by the membership.
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Ietf mailing list