ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process

2006-09-15 06:53:30
On 12:38 15/09/2006, Yaakov Stein said:
I am somewhat surprised that no-one has actually answered the question
why DO we use a noncom rather than open elections?

I think that one answer to that question is quite simple.
In open elections where all meeting participants
or all active WG participants take part,
there would be a strong bias towards large corporations
who can afford to devote a large number of representatives.

I am not sure that bias would be that bad. Because this bias does exist on the market. I feel that this is what is exactly happening right now in an uncorrect way (cf. IAB RFC 3869). Let suppose the IESG would be biased by large corporations (is it not: who else can pay people to volunteer to such job), their interests would be more clearly exposed than through the current system + market impact. May be could we save one or to years on the TTM.

In fact, we could rapidly find the IETF effectively kidnapped by one or two companies, stifling creativity and serving to further their narrow economic interests, rather than those of the developer and user communities at large. This would undermine the whole purpose of the IETF.

I am afraid that at least in some cases (I met two while being active in three WGs) this is what is happening. You notice it less, but WG can be kidnapped. IMHO this is more insidious because what the corporations then want is not development but the confirmation of their positions and commercial leadership through RFCs. Again, I strongly advise we reread carefully IAB's RFC 3869.

IMHO no system can be perfect. All the more if one tries to make it supporting everything, development, engineering, documentation, testing. But I would be very interested in a parallel effort for structural issues where WGs would be protected from being hijacked by having the IETF deliverables' users (other SSDOs, industry, Govs, civil society) the moderator.

The noncom has built-in restrictions that work to keep the IETF diverse and responsive to a wide community.

Yes. But there could be other solutions providing the same protection, but more adapted to a part of the IETF growth and current state of the technical governance.

Isn't it easier to answer the question asked rather than indulging in the content-free discussion we have just witnessed?

Yes. IMHO the real problem is well described in RFC 3935. The technology the IETF documents is built along the IETF core values. I feel these values and technical interests have somewhat diversified. We should therefore consider not to change what works, but to explore new _additional_ avenues. The technology, the Internet, the world, the IETF is no more in 1986.

jfc

Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
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