Re: Voting (again)

I will just address the nomcom topics and also comment on general voting.

The last topic first: organizations such as IEEE (not SA, but the entire 
IEEE) and ACM conduct all member voting to elect presidents and other 
officers.  I never return my votes; as far as I am concerned it is a 
huge waste of paper with the multiple ballots they send out (I don't 
know the numbers, but suspect many/most ACM members don't even know the 
current office members).  I strongly suspect that that will be the case 
with the IETF also if voting were ever to be introduced.  What's more 
consider also the possibility of a few companies or "interest groups" 
colluding to elect a "warm body" for any of the positions.  What if the 
entire IESG and IAB voted in is from companies A and B, consisting 
potentially of "suits" who registered for 2 out of the past 3 IETF 
meetings  (costs 2 * $500 + and two same day return air tickets)?
Is the Nomcom perfect?  No.  In fact, I was not quite happy with some of 
the aspects.  However, it has been tinkered with and in many cases for 
the better (e.g., no more than 2 people from the same affiliation can be 
on the Nomcom; wish we do that for IAB, IESG and IAOC also), and I think 
that (viz., small changes to Nomcom) would be the model for the near future.
On Nomcom returning "controversial" members, consider the possibility 
that a vocal minority (in fact, even a very few vocal people) labeling 
an IAB/IESG member as such.  Even if that is the consensus of the 
community, Nomcom would need feedback from several people with 
(verifiable) examples, and nominations for potential candidates, who are 
interested and qualified.  (It might also be worthwhile to remember that 
Nomcom receives positive feedback too.  I guess the word controversial 
already covers that.)
As a nomcom member, I have put a good amount of time in reading answers 
to questionnaires, reviewing feedback, interviewing candidates and 
participating in lengthy discussions in making my decisions.  I don't 
think I will be able to put even 1/10th of the time, if that were to be 
on a yearly basis.  The only downside being on the Nomcom is that, if 
one wins the lottery only once in a lifetime, I used up mine :-).
regards,
Lakshminath

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.
>
> 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
>
>  
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf