Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson(_at_)enterasys(_dot_)com]
I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in
which the representatives are chosen by a random selection
process, rather than by election. The outcome, which
supports in-depth consideration and substantial, informed
debate, is much the same.
The NOMCON process is certainly grounded in academic theories of governance
that were popular in the 80s. Many of them attempt to provide a practical
implementation of Rawl's theory of justice.
The problem I see is NOT who gets elected but the lack of authority and
mandate. The reason that the time spent on NEWTRACK was wasted is that nobody
feels that they have a mandate to change anything.
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
I think Quality and Timeliness are real problems (unlike this one),
but the IETF output is much better than you suggest, and IMO it
is improving.
I do not want NOMCOM to be replaced by an election process.
I want dedicated volunteers to continue the in-depth selection
process. I have no faith whatsoever that the community-at-large
would put any significant effort into an election process. I am concerned
that financially motivated companies would abuse the election process
to gain more control of the IETF. Then massive efforts would be needed
to fix the new mess.
Andy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf