ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome

2006-09-15 08:53:54

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
ratherthansome


Clearly, we could choose to do that.
There are several drawbacks.

Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors
the current approach.

By those allowed to participate and vote - not by the breadth of those
participating in the IETF itself.

Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF
which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria.  This was consider an
unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria.

Which means that the NOMCOM selection process excludes people it represents.

 To
counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the
needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings.

I would suggest that you review fiduciary responsibility which is what you
are talking about.

Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed
recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on
effectiveness for the job.

Which means that the Sponsor's  and others who have bet the bank on their
retaining control of the IESG could lose that control. Too bad.


I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have
found all of the problems.

If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would
probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election
mode would be worth whatever problems it solved.  However, without a
clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see
any point in trying to evaluate an alternative.  Elections are not in
and of themselves "good".  For civil governments, they seem to be the
best choice we can find.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term
'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define
it according to their convenience. One can be a member without
having a vote and can have a vote without being a member.

Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it
so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a
partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership
agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it
extinguish the liabilities, &ct. of such.


All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise.
The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as
the NOMCON is at present.


_______________________________________________
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