Sorry Andy - about that my fat fingered double SS turns 'as' into... Sorry.
----- Original Message ----- From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Andy Bierman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <ietf@ietf.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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <ietf@ietf.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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> 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@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
