[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Confirming vs. second-guessing

2008-03-17 09:46:18
I think you have the whole confirmation process backwards.

If you start from the premise that the absolute priority is to keep control in 
the hands of the establishment you naturally arrive at a need for at least two 
bodies arranged so that each acts as a guardianship council to the other.

Having arrived at the need for a confirmation process you then have to work out 
how to explain why they should exercise veto power over the consensus of the 
body as a whole. Nomcon provides a surrogate for consensus but in a form that 
ensures that there is no mandate.

I know that people can find arguments as to why this is better than Nomcon 
qualified IETF participants having a vote. I got rather tired of arguments of 
the form 'this is better than democracy' after hearing them used to defend the 
'need' to build the Berlin wall.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Ralph Droms
Sent: Sun 16/03/2008 9:16 PM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring 
authority resides in the confirming bodies.

Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree.  In my opinoin, the Nomcom 
is the hiring committee; the confirming body is the oversight and sanity 
check body.  The Nomcom is selected from the IETF as a whole to select the 
management for the IETF, who then serve at the pleasure of the IETF as a 
whole.  The confirming bodies do not form a hierarchical management or 
hiring organization; rather, they perform a final check and review of the 

- Ralph

IETF mailing list

IETF mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>