-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
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.
Agreed, except that this community has a preference for rejecting kings,
and preferring rough consensus and running code. It's hard to reject the
officials of other organizations and appoint our own representatives to
do anything more than coordinate internally.
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.
I don't agree that this is how they operated in the past as much as the
present; IMO, in the past they acted more as coordinators and
facilitators, but now they're acting as judge and jury.
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.
And what would that achieve? another august body whose proclamations
would be quoted but otherwise ignored?
And what does 'greater influence' constitute? They already have
judge/jury power beyond what has served the community well, IMO.
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.
IM, the Web, P2P sharing, etc. are all counterexamples to this.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCXWtmE5f5cImnZrsRAizDAJ9ygMkMvo9kUh/mXtH5DQ5cLDai1wCdG1yd
ldlzYiUmYHKFrYlu9Ugf0cw=
=IkKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf