-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
Joe,
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.
Agreed - it was poolsize I was alluding to.
..
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
"representatives".
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.
That holds true for for voting in the US, but we use representatives and
vote indirectly. Ditto for the IETF, except that we use a random process
to select the representatives.
Unless we believe that there is statistical significance to the sample
thus selected, our current voting system (which is what it is) is broken...
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCXWEjE5f5cImnZrsRAgo1AJ9YfwKJElvcOXhrU/3Euiw5r9J46QCgo11b
dUmVWGTvO6bN0e56hE6nkAY=
=XV/i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf