Sorry Andy - about that my fat fingered double SS turns 'as' into... Sorry.
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
To: "Andy Bierman" <ietf(_at_)andybierman(_dot_)com>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an openElection
Process
Andy - Financially Motivated companies can maneuver and abuse the current
process
as
simply as have 5 or voices on any mailing list.
What happens is that the IESG says there were be only one WG of any type
and
so that eliminates because those running the WG regularly refuse to accept
initiatives with they either personally don't like or that threaten others
that are under way in their WG's...
For instance - would Harald H ever let me run an initiative through IPR? -
not a chance and his refusal to allow me to file my drafts under his WG is
a
violation of the IETF charter, and tortuous interference by he and the
IESG
to prevent me from 'changing how the IETF operates'.
The issue is that Peer-Review without proper oversight is an invitation to
fraud and tortuous interference with others initiatives and the IETF is
hip
deep in the middle of it IMHO
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf(_at_)andybierman(_dot_)com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open
Election Process
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
_______________________________________________
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