Re: Voting (again)

On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 09:56:46 AM -0700 Dave Crocker 
<dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
> >  I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I thought
> >  it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
> >
> >  An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective.  I was
> >  assuming, perhaps incorrectly,that you subscribed to that view.
> Most years, I put my name into the nomcom list.  I've been on nomcom
> twice.
>
> I believe in the process, but I also believe it needs significant
> changing.
>
> The current design of the nomcom process works well when there is a large
> percentage of the volunteer pool that has extensive experience with both
> the  technology and the IETF process. This makes it likely that a useful
> portion of  the resulting nomcom will be savvy about IETF issues.
>
> Over the years, that percentage has gone down dramatically. This has
> resulted  in recent nomcoms that have very little real IETF process
> experience among the  voting members.
That is indeed a problem.  I think a nontrivial part of the solution should 
be to encourage people who do have that experience to volunteer.  One thing 
I've noticed in organizing various kinds of volunteer activities is that 
you get better response when you ask or encourage people individually to 
participate, rather than relying solely on broadcast announcements such as 
the ones sent to this list and ietf-announce soliciting nomcom volunteers. 
Of course the announcements are necessary, but they are not sufficient.  I 
think we might get a better mix if people with an interest in a well-run 
IETF (but who are NOT members of the current managemet) would personally 
encourage qualfiied, experienced individuals to volunteer for nomcom, as 
well as doing so themselves.

> When there is a pattern of concern, there is a problem that needs fixing.
True.  But the problem may not be the one there is concern about.  If there 
is a pattern of concern that the sky is falling, the problem may be a lack 
of education concerning the nature of the atmosphere.  There is far too 
much tendency to make changes just to be seen to be "doing something", 
regardless of whether the changes are appropriate or effective.



> So, I chose to cite a common rationale used by the nomcom ("there were no
> other choices") and suggest that the regular occurrence of that rationale
> is  sufficient indication of a deep, serious problem that needs
> addressing.
This is indeed a problem.  The time commitment required for these positions 
is so large that it is essentially a full-time job.  That means the nomcom 
has to try to find someone who is qualified, is willing to set aside 
whatever they're working on for 2 years, and has a source of funding for 
that period of time.  Few employers are willing to provide that kind of 
support, and few individuals (or at least, few individuals qualified to 
serve in the IETF leadership) can afford to do so on their own.
This is a problem that has been mentioned many times, with many proposed 
solutions of varying practicality and effectiveness.  I'm not going to 
comment here on any of those proposals, but I do think the problem needs to 
be addressed.  This is not easy, though, and will require some study and 
significant involvement from present and past holders of those jobs.



> That we now are assured of knowing who is doing the veto merely means
> that we  can engage in infinite, unproductive exchanges about their
> concerns.  There is  no way to really counter the veto, when it is silly,
> other than an appeal.
We rarely have appeals, and yet my impression is that most documents which 
reach the IESG do progress.  Maybe you're right, and the reason is that 
people are so intimidated by the prospect of going up against the 
management that they manage to address whatever the AD in question is 
unhappy about.  And maybe, in some cases, that's even a good thing.
However, I'm not entirely convinced that the unrestricted veto really 
exists.  Before I can think about solutions to this problem, I need to 
reexamine the process and convince myself that it really is a problem.

-- Jeff

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