Voting has all kinds of issues.
I like the current Nomcom process because it depends on 2 things:
- A pool of qualified volunteers
- Luck in picking a nomcom that behaves sensibly (for whatever that
means to you)
Given that luck is involved, many of the possible attacks that people
could mount in order to gain more IETF influence won't happen - simply
because they have a significant chance of failure. Trying, failing, and
being detected as having tried, would be harmful to the group that tried it.
Besides, knowing that the IETF fundamentally depends on luck gives me a
good feeling when the pomposity gets too overwhelming :-)
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
This is a useful and necessary change.
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have
an Internet Architecture Board that stopped trying to do architecture
after the Kobe revolt. That is a problem because the architecture is
not a static property, without direction it degrades over time.
Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process
being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the
IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people
who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree
with.
Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the
discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure
that the members of the IAB get along and to keep out anyone who might
rock the boat. As a result the only members of the awkward squad who
get appointed are the ones who are committed to defending the status
quo at all costs, not the people who point out what is not working.
Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a
member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that
type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely
counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to
build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part
of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be
sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical
principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright
enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable
counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of
thing in IETF.
We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work.
[*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The
pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those
appointed, not so great for the rest of us.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Sam Hartman<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Having reviewed the draft, I support publication of this document as a
BCP. I think it is a long-needed change. I understand that there are
important tradeoffs involved, and while I acknowledge that there are
disadvantages to this change, I think that it is a significant net
good.
_______________________________________________
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