Re: Voting (again)

Dear John and Brian,
thank you for this review. Brian quotes real efforts, John real life images 
(like US Congres). I feel the difference is the press coverage. Don't you 
think this debate would be different if what is debated and obtained at the 
IETF got press coverage and therefore public exposure and positive or 
negative recognition?
We are daily innundated by press technical hear-says from all over the 
world .... except from IETF. Don't you think that if IETF was really 
important and clear to the market it would not receive a proper press 
coverage with a dedicated magazine and columns in the specialized press all 
over the world. With articles in general press on important issues to the 
people.
I assume that the IETF work can be important. So the alternative is it is 
not clear to the press. The lack of relation with users, real world, etc. 
is often assumed as an IETF "plus" (I disagree with this: I think it is an 
inability to think how much it is important to communicate rather than a 
plus?). The debate on the IASA shown it: no interest in PR, no interest in 
local ISOC Chapter support, etc.
I will take a single example: http://www.ietf.org/iesg.html - if when you 
click on IESG Members names you got a resume, a picture and some vision 
statement it could be quite interesting for the press (and for members - 
all the more those not sponsored by a big employer and not being able to 
vacation three times a year at IETF meetings). I compare with 
http://iab.org/about/members-plus.html (which not easy to find) ... beut a 
beignning ... some are on both pages.
I submit that if press covered the IETF debate, we would discuss of what 
interests the markets, in the way the market is interested, at the speed 
the market is interested. Only because the payroll of some in here would 
depend on the image they would give of their employer.
And when I say "market" I also say Governments. IAB correctly identified 
that only them could sponsor the necessary Internet R&D (RFC 3869). I 
submit that a press coverage of their draft would have risen a few 
questions about the lack of allusion to multilingualism, while the USA are 
in the middle of the multilingualism year and 192 Governments made it a 
priority at the WSIS.
The 4th power is often our best protection in real life. I feel it could be 
the same at the IETF.
jfc

PS. Brian, I found an interesting English word. "particularism": "a 
principle of allowing each state in a nation or federation to act 
independently of the central authority, especially in promoting its own 
economic interests".
At 22:21 26/04/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 14:23 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
> <jhutz(_at_)cmu(_dot_)edu> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Jeff,
>
> There are some ways to fix, or at least improve, parts of this,
> but there doesn't seem to be any will in the community to do so.
> I'm not going to say much that wasn't said during the Problem
> Statement exercise, but perhaps a review is in order.
>
> First, the IESG job has become so burdensome in part because of
> decisions by the IESG about how much work they need to do and to
> what level of detail they need to address documents.  To take a
> handy, but deliberately non-specific, example, if the IESG
> considers it appropriate to hold a document up over the wording
> of a title or abstract, and to debate that wording, the cycles
> that go into the discussion are, however indirectly, a
> contribution to the IESG's becoming a full time job.   I would
> rather see the IESG fix that than having the community apply
> whatever blunt instruments it has --and there are some signs
> that the current IESG might make some steps in the right
> direction.  But, to the extent to which the Nomcom selects
> people who are happy having the IESG be a full time job, rather
> than dedicated to getting that workload down, the Nomcom and the
> community are endorsing what we then complain about.
>
> Second, there are well-known phenomena in many political systems
> that lead people to say "well, that body consists mostly of
> scum, but my representative is a good guy".  The US Congress has
> turned into a particularly striking example, but it is by no
> means unique.    The attitude creates a very strong bias toward
> reselection of incumbents.   I suggest that the community, and
> the Nomcoms, end up suffering from the same phenomenon and that,
> if we don't like the symptoms that seem to come with people who
> have been on the IESG for too long, we need to start thinking
> about ways to adjust the system to prevent the "too long"
> situation.
>
> Finally (at least for this note), the rate at which incumbents
> are returned if they are willing to put up with more punishment
> suggests that Nomcoms are asking not whether someone new could
> do the job about as well but whether they could do a better job
> than the incumbent.  Unless an incumbent is perceived as having
> really screwed up, the answer to that question will almost
> always be "no".  If nothing else, IESG roles are complex and
> anyone new will lose some number of weeks or months reading into
> the role.  Also someone new is always an uncertainty and it is
> rational and normal for, e.g., a WG Chair to advise the nomcom
> that a particular AD should be returned based on logic of "I
> have figured out how to work with this one, even though it is
> sometimes difficult; I wouldn't look forward to breaking in a
> new one, risking a worse relationship, etc."   In addition to
> the "too long in position" issues raised above, this interacts
> with the workload and volunteers problem: Indicating
> availability for one of these positions, and then staying
> available, is itself a big commitment.  That is a commitment not
> just for an individual but for a company.  It is tolerable if
> there is a reasonable expectation of getting the position and
> having an opportunity to serve.  But, if the odds are high that
> the incumbent will be returned no matter what, the incentives to
> get the needed approvals and resources lined up are really very
> poor.  We are hence seeing problems convincing people to put
> their names in the pot against the name of an incumbent who is
> doing even a passable job... and I predict that will get worse.
>
> There are ways to fix, or at least significantly improve, things
> along each of those dimensions.  But I don't think the community
> is really interested enough to consider them seriously, much
> less push them through.  And that, I suggest, gives us exactly
> the leadership structures and behaviors we deserve and
> presumably want.
>
>      john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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