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
process.
- Ralph
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf