Re: What? This thread is talking about *voting* now?

+1

Bob

On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> It's really annoying when a thread drifts to a wildly different topic
> without somebody thinking to change the Subject header.
>
> My comments on nominees would be much less frank if I knew they
> would be published. In fact, I doubt if I would make any at all.
>
> Here's a comment I sent in a number of years ago.
>
> "Arrogant, sometimes rude, not interested in listening to other
> people. I think <pronoun> would be an abysmal AD."
>
> In public? I don't think so. The whole idea of honest feedback only
> works when kept confidential.
>
> As for voting, I understand Mary's frustration at the lack of
> participation, but this really must not become a popularity
> contest and certainly not be put at risk of capture by companies
> or countries that send a lot of people to meetings. After all,
> this thread started out about how to *not* need to go to meetings.
>
> Regards
>   Brian
>
> On 2011-10-27 16:00, Ross Callon wrote:
> > Mary;
> >
> > Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom 
> > to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without 
> > hearing these comments?
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:52 PM
> > To: Peter Saint-Andre
> > Cc: John C Klensin; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre 
> > <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im<mailto:stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>> wrote:
> > On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > >
> > > > (e.g., the NomCom
> > > > schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
> > > no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
> > Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
> > members vote. Easy.
> >
> > [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow 
> > anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom 
> > process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the 
> > Nomcom, you can vote.    I personally believe that voting would be better 
> > than the current model.  As it is, a very small percentage of the 
> > participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or 
> > providing feedback:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2)
> >
> > So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually 
> > get more folks caring about who the leaders are.    It would also save a 
> > tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom. 
> >  [/MB]
> >
> > [Also, ducking]
> >
> > Mary.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> 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