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".
The criteria applied for membership of NOMCON could be applied to direct
voting rights without any difficulty.
The issue as you point out later is the size of the pool of candidates
which is largely constrained by the workload that the IESG has taken on
for itself. At present there is no mechanism that allows the IETF
membership to say 'stop spending your time doing what you are doing and
instead attend to these other tasks which are much more important'.
The current IESG model is to play professor/thesis adviser to the RFC
editors' graduate student. This is not a very surprising model given how
the IETF started.
The model I want to move to would give the IESG and IAB considerably
greater influence in the development of the Internet than they currently
exercise. At present there is nobody who has the authority to represent
the IETF membership.
If we are ever going to deploy IPv6 successfully or undertake any of the
major infrastructure projects that the IETF has been sitting on for a
decade there has to be a negotiation that takes place between the
parties whose buy in required for deployment. The current model of 'we
decide, you comply' is not working. The fear seems to be that the minute
the IETF recognizes that there is any stakeholder in the furture of the
Internet other than itself that it will loose all influence.
The Internet is no longer driven by the production of code.
The model worked well when the IETF was dominated by a very
large core of
highly experienced participants with a similar framework and base of
experience for IETF process.
The IETF worked well when it was smaller than 150 people and has not
worked at all after it passed the Dunbar limit.
There are some realy fundamental constraints on human organizations
which most institutions understand and respect. Engineers have a habit
of not valuing expertise from outside their field. They also have a
habit of looking for a situation in which there are no constraints on
technical excellence, no time pressures and no accountability.
Over the years, the nomcom has often cited the reason for
retaining someone as "no one else can do the job".
Yes, and this has often led to the retention of the most controvertial
members.
The idea that an international standards body for a global
infrastructure
service is THAT dependent upon a single person ought to be a
rather large red
flag to the community that some very basic changes are needed.
I agree.
Given the infrequency with which Dave and myself agree on anything this
is not insignificant.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf