----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
First you focused on "ambiguity", when that seems pretty clearly not to
be the issue -- although I note that you have not responded to that
observation.
IMHO RFC3777, like most RFCs, contains ambiguity, imprecision
and gaps. That's why we revise RFCs from time to time, when running
code reveals these problems.
Business Processes are not running code and are constrained in the real
world by laws which the IETF's processes seem to ignore.
Now you focus on the difference between the two people who head the IAB
and IESG, versus the entirety of those bodies, as if the two Chairs are
devoid of potential for CoI.
There's an enormous difference between the two chairs being copied on
a mail thread, which did happen, and discussion being invoked in the two
bodies, which did not happen.
How do we know that? Why shoudl we believe you Brian?
Neither of those provide a substantive response to the concern about
Nomcom independence.
The concern, as I understand it, was about potential bias in the selection
of Nomcom. And I have responded - IMHO the correct fix is for the process
document to be specific about where the NomCom Chair should go for
advice when there is a glitch in the selection process.
How about we dump the NOMCOM process as flawed and put in place an election
that IETF Members vote on. Simple and easy to manage and not per se subject
to the same kind of abuses that the IESG has subjected the IETF and its
membership to in this and many other instances.
Todd
Brian
_______________________________________________
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