ietf has members? when did that happen Todd?
--bill (checking for his membership card, reviewing tax records for missed
membership dues, etc...)
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:10:41AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Ned Eliot - why fix the process??? - lets just turn the IETF into a
democracy and every member gets a vote.and that way the process isn't
needed.
ISOC members should probably also get to vote eh?
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Freed" <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
To: "Eliot Lear" <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>; "IETF Discussion"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Ned,
Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem
that
arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in
this case
WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics.
I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the
problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the
same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many ways (not
that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the circumstances I *still*
believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has
ensured the integrity of the process.
First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity of
the
list and result publication can be addressed trivially by having the
secretariat provide the list they received for vetting purposes as well as
the
result they handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but
AFAIK
you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't deal with your
concerns, both in the present situation and should a similar situation
ever
arise in the future. (in fact I think you said that this would resolve the
issue for you, this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this
solution to
your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no need to comment on
it
further.
Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how the community
can
be confident that the process wasn't gamed in the fashion I have
previously
described.
By building formal accountability into the Role Responsibility and by
auditing the actions of the role therein.
AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I
have to say I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times
more
serious than something that can be checked quite easily.
Ths issue is not oversight in real-time but rather several years later and a
Standards Entity's "Adminitsrative Processes" in which the words "Fair and
Open" are so important that the Entity absorbs some overhead to prove its
integrity in an ongoing manner. - OK that's the 200KM view
What it really means is that processes in which any reviewable or
challengable decisions are made are made transparent and with a trail of
evidence from. This is about the design of the whole NOMCOM process.
My take personally is that the best solution is that the IETF Membership is
recognized formally and allowed to vote - on any and all positions from AD
up. Then none of this hocus pocus is necessary. I think we would find the
IETF a very heavly voted democracy and what I mean by that is that the voter
turnout in IETF elections would be high.
Todd
In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here.
Ned
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf