On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value
of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth
value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no
fallacy.
True. But I'm not sure I agree that this is what has happened here.
Personally, I don't think that Todd is a "despicable" person, but I
do find his tactics a bit tiresome. Like Carl, I resent the
insinuation that the chair of the IETF has lied to his constituency.
I have for a long time had a discussion with him regarding the use of
mailing lists and the fact that they have intended topics. Like him,
I have some experience talking with lawyers but am not a lawyer. I
quickly tire of his bullying.
Bottom line, I would welcome the sergeant-at-arms addressing the
issue in the manner prescribed.
That said, the nomcom process is imperfect. I have reason to know: I
chaired the nomcom in 1993, was a liaison from the IAB to in 2002,
and am a liaison from the ISOC Board to this year. We have tried to
deal with the imperfections in it several times, and in the end wind
up with something that mostly works but has imperfections because it
depends on people, and people are imperfect. It depends on the
quality of the people we put on it, and in fact I think we have
consistently put on the nomcom people of quality who have sought,
however imperfectly, to make the right things happen for the
community. And I think many of them have felt a bit abused by the
community later on. I wish that the community would treat its
servants better; they certainly try to treat it better.
Todd would like to see the membership of the IETF formally defined
and used to support voting. That's a reasonable thing to do, if the
community wants to go there. The big problem in it is that much of
the community doesn't know the individuals in it other than those
they have worked with, so voting is essentially a popularity contest.
We have seen that on the ISOC Board, back when there was a direct
vote for its membership, and we have seen it in other SDOs. The
antics of one campaigning for a position can be amusing to watch, and
the fact that people are forced to campaign leads people trying to do
technical work to ask "did s/he say that because they think it's
pertinent, or because they are campaigning for a position?". I find
the campaigning fairly destructive.
I may be mistaken, and if so someone will no doubt correct me. I
don't believe that we do the nomcom process because we don't want to
vote. I think we do it because we don't want to deal with the
processes of campaigning, and because we want better leadership than
a popularity contest would give us. Since the nomcom does a fairly
serious investigation of the people it proposes, I think it is more
likely to give us the type and quality of people that our processes
depend on. Whatever its imperfections, I think it is a better process
than a voting process would be in the IETF context.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf