Re: Specifying a state machine: ASCII-based languages
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 05:00:20PM +0100, Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 56 lines which said: > Isn't there a suitable text based state description language > published by the CCITT that we can use Pointers are welcome but you probably mean SDL, aka Z.100 (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/Z100.pdf and http://www.sdl-forum.org/). There are already existing languages for state machines and all those I know are displayed at http://www.cosmogol.fr/related.html. > rather than invent our own from scratch? There are several reasons why none of them seemed useful for the IETF, in the specific context of state machine description in the RFCs. * several are not published as a stable standard (such as Graphviz or SMC), so they cannot be normative references, * those who are published as a standard are not always available (Z.100 is an ITU standard and they do not publish everything freely, the SDL forum publishes a non-authoritative version and even tutorials are not freely available, see http://www.iec.org/acrobat.asp?filecode=125). * some are extremely complex, intended for a much more general use (such as UML and SDL). Ask yourself why no state machine in the RFC is described with these languages. And why RFC 2360 does not mention them. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
On Fri Sep 15 01:09:10 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. I hope not. I should argue very strongly against taking away the voting rights that I neither have nor want. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
Title: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome I am somewhat surprised that no-one has actually answered the question why DO we use a noncom rather than open elections? I think that one answer to that question is quite simple. In open elections where all meeting participants or all active WG participants take part, there would be a strong bias towards large corporations who can afford to devote a large number of representatives. In fact, we could rapidly find the IETF effectively kidnapped by one or two companies, stifling creativity and serving to further their narrow economic interests, rather than those of the developer and user communities at large. This would undermine the whole purpose of the IETF. The noncom has built-in restrictions that work to keep the IETF diverse and responsive to a wide community. Isn't it easier to answer the question asked rather than indulging in the content-free discussion we have just witnessed? Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Phill, > There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' > is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their > convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote > without being a member. > > Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a > an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement > explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make > it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, &ct. of > such. > > > All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The > franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is > at present. > > "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Net." Can we stop arguing about what could be and concern ourselves with what we want? If we are happy with what we have then let's simply stop arguing. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Specifying a state machine: ASCII-based languages
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 05:00:20PM +0100, Stewart Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 56 lines which said: Isn't there a suitable text based state description language published by the CCITT that we can use Pointers are welcome but you probably mean SDL, aka Z.100 (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com17/languages/Z100.pdf and http://www.sdl-forum.org/). Yes - SDL / Z.100 was the one that I was thinking of. There are already existing languages for state machines and all those I know are displayed at http://www.cosmogol.fr/related.html. rather than invent our own from scratch? There are several reasons why none of them seemed useful for the IETF, in the specific context of state machine description in the RFCs. * several are not published as a stable standard (such as Graphviz or SMC), so they cannot be normative references, * those who are published as a standard are not always available (Z.100 is an ITU standard and they do not publish everything freely, the SDL forum publishes a non-authoritative version and even tutorials are not freely available, see http://www.iec.org/acrobat.asp?filecode=125). Perhaps we can fix this with a liaison to the ITU saying that in the interests of co-operation and a desire to use a common state machine language to ensure the interoperation and uniform interpretation of our protocols would they make Z.100 available to all who are designing and implementing IETF protocols. * some are extremely complex, intended for a much more general use (such as UML and SDL). Do we mean more complex or more complete? Ask yourself why no state machine in the RFC is described with these languages. And why RFC 2360 does not mention them. I have no idea. - Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
> From: "Yaakov Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am somewhat surprised that no-one has actually answered the question > why DO we use a noncom rather than open elections? Acually, several people have. Fred Baker recently (13 Sep 2006 04:26:30) made a post which made a very good analysis of this point, and one of mine discussed it as well, early in the thread (5 Sep 2006 11:34:43). There are a variety of reasons, above the one you cited (packing); my personal favourite is one several people mentioned (less politics), but I think perhaps the most useful one in practise is another one which I mentioned earlier: >> Rather than having everyone spend ten minutes on deciding who to >> select, a subset (which the random draw hopefully makes reasonably >> representative of the group as a whole) does a more in-depth and >> thought-through selection. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
Noel Chiappa writes... > ...I think perhaps the most useful one in practise is > another one which I mentioned earlier: > > >> Rather than having everyone spend ten minutes on > >> deciding who to select, a subset (which the random > >> draw hopefully makes reasonably representative of > >> the group as a whole) does a more in-depth and > >> thought-through selection. I agree. Since this thread has been going done the path of civic governance models, let me elaborate one that supports the current NOMCOM model. In my area, many towns govern themselves via Town Meeting, in which all voters are invited to a deliberative session to pass budgets, ordinances and the like. When all goes according to plan, there is an open exchange of information and a reasoned debate on the issues prior to each vote. Many claim this to be the "true democracy". Other towns have decided that the population has grown too large for Town Meeting to be practical and effective. One alternative is Representative Town Meeting. The electorate chooses (by election) a tractable number of representatives to attend the Town Meeting on their behalf. These representatives debate the issues and vote them up or down. 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. Quite frankly, I don't see a need to substantially change this model. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
On 12:38 15/09/2006, Yaakov Stein said: >I am somewhat surprised that no-one has actually answered the question >why DO we use a noncom rather than open elections? > >I think that one answer to that question is quite simple. >In open elections where all meeting participants >or all active WG participants take part, >there would be a strong bias towards large corporations >who can afford to devote a large number of representatives. I am not sure that bias would be that bad. Because this bias does exist on the market. I feel that this is what is exactly happening right now in an uncorrect way (cf. IAB RFC 3869). Let suppose the IESG would be biased by large corporations (is it not: who else can pay people to volunteer to such job), their interests would be more clearly exposed than through the current system + market impact. May be could we save one or to years on the TTM. >In fact, we could rapidly find the IETF effectively kidnapped by one >or two companies, stifling creativity and serving to further their >narrow economic interests, rather than those of the developer and >user communities at large. This would undermine the whole purpose of the IETF. I am afraid that at least in some cases (I met two while being active in three WGs) this is what is happening. You notice it less, but WG can be kidnapped. IMHO this is more insidious because what the corporations then want is not development but the confirmation of their positions and commercial leadership through RFCs. Again, I strongly advise we reread carefully IAB's RFC 3869. IMHO no system can be perfect. All the more if one tries to make it supporting everything, development, engineering, documentation, testing. But I would be very interested in a parallel effort for structural issues where WGs would be protected from being hijacked by having the IETF deliverables' users (other SSDOs, industry, Govs, civil society) the moderator. >The noncom has built-in restrictions that work to keep the IETF >diverse and responsive to a wide community. Yes. But there could be other solutions providing the same protection, but more adapted to a part of the IETF growth and current state of the technical governance. >Isn't it easier to answer the question asked rather than indulging >in the content-free discussion we have just witnessed? Yes. IMHO the real problem is well described in RFC 3935. The technology the IETF documents is built along the IETF core values. I feel these values and technical interests have somewhat diversified. We should therefore consider not to change what works, but to explore new _additional_ avenues. The technology, the Internet, the world, the IETF is no more in 1986. jfc >Y(J)S >___ >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
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 09:28 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I raised several specific objections to your view, which you > have chosen not to respond to here. The comment you quote > was not intended as an argument you should (or as you observe > could) respond to, but rather as an indication taht I would > not be surprised if there were additional issues beyond the > ones I raised that would also need to be discussed. If you make arguments that are lazy and demonstrate disrespect as yours did then don't be surprised if people respond to the arguments that you are (or at least should be) ashamed of. Your other argument was that there should be no change because there was no consensus, an entirely circular argument that implies nobody can ever argue for change. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
> 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. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Uh - Randy that's because they all have formally constrained memberships and have an ongoing relation between them and their participants. They also do not have people in those entities creating documents which allege power of attorney for IP that is submitted as part of the standards process. The IETF does and that is one of the most basic problems here per se IMHO. The IETF needs to formally admit is has a membership and that those members in some cases can speak for themselves and in others cannot. It also needs to stop making decisions for those participants and come up with better oversight models for its peer-based processes. If you want more detail I can spin it for you all day long. Todd Glassey - Original Message - From: "Randy Presuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome > Hi - > > Strangely absent from this discussion are any examples > of standards bodies that satisfy the critics' criteria. Perhaps > some examples of standards organizations successfully using > processes meeting those criteria would be helpful to focus > this dicussion. > > Randy > > > ___ > 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
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
- Original Message - From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome > Clearly, we could choose to do that. > There are several drawbacks. > > Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors > the current approach. By those allowed to participate and vote - not by the breadth of those participating in the IETF itself. > Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF > which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an > unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria. Which means that the NOMCOM selection process excludes people it represents. > To > counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the > needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings. I would suggest that you review fiduciary responsibility which is what you are talking about. > Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed > recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on > effectiveness for the job. Which means that the Sponsor's and others who have bet the bank on their retaining control of the IESG could lose that control. Too bad. > > I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have > found all of the problems. > > If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would > probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election > mode would be worth whatever problems it solved. However, without a > clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see > any point in trying to evaluate an alternative. Elections are not in > and of themselves "good". For civil governments, they seem to be the > best choice we can find. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term > >'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define > >it according to their convenience. One can be a member without > >having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. > > > >Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it > >so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a > >partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership > >agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it > >extinguish the liabilities, &ct. of such. > > > > > >All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. > >The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as > >the NOMCON is at present. > > > ___ > 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
Flaw in the design of NoteWell makes Notewell Not Well.
By the way all and Jorge, you should take this as a formal challenge to refute - I don't think you can. I found what I think is a massive flaw (AKA a "Catch 22") in NoteWell as to how it applies to corporate participants ad unfortunately, I think it means that the IETF's processes IP induction process need to be shut down until NOTEWELL can be formally fixed since it by my take its broken and solicits fraud's in a large number of the IP's it claims "it owns based" on email submissions. This email constitutes formal notice -- If Jorge, the IETF's Advisory or General Counsel as a licensed attorney wants to pop up and formally for the record say this analysis of the NoteWell Process ISN'T TRUE then the rest of this post can be ignored, BUT otherwise this memo constitutes a formal notice of my concerns about the IETF's Participation Agreement. A very complex contract spread across numerous documents which I characterize as "unenforceable based on numerous frauds it forces Participants who are using their Company Email services and the ownership of the IP submitted, which must be represented to it through its design"; So Jorge please formally advise your client as to whether this is true or not, and instruct them appropriately. I.e. If this post is accurate and these concerns are real then please instruct your client to immediately cease any NoteWell type assignment's to the IETF until this matter is resolved. By the way this also eliminates any submissions to the Editor too for the same reasons through Corporate Email Gateway's, Let me explain: Corporate Entities and their AUP's -- Corporate Entities who are public or constrained by civil 'standard of care' laws like SOX or other legislation generally all have a formal HR rule that each and every employee signs an IT AUP agreement. Think back folks - did you sign one of these? The reason is that usually these AUP's contain an Email specific agreement that says "that the Company owns any and all emails emanating through their email system" & you folks who are sponsored by some third party who is constrained under commercial law all probably signed one of these. The AUP you signed - If you did, I suggest that you READ IT CAREFULLY. If the AUP says the company/entity owns all the IP that flows through its email gateway then YOU cannot legally speaking assign those rights to the IETF since YOU DONT OWN THEM. That means without specific agreements between the Your Sponsor, a Public Entity, and the IETF, as well as an amended AUP between you as an Employee and your Employer, you (the Employee) should not be posting from the Work address/domain or system. That also means that without some specific agreement between the Employer and the IETF there can be no transfer of IP rights into the IETF. The IETF's faking this by creating boilerplate which claims that you also must represent to the IETF that you have these legal capabilities is also an inducement to commit fraud IMHO since it is very likely that any and all management of the IETF signed one or more of these IP and AUP controlling agreements with their sponsors. NoteWell's Failing - NoteWell as it stands today has a statement that any and all email sent to the IETF becomes the property of the IETF. So then the problem is that the person sending IP to the IETF through the Corporate GW doesn't own that IP to assign it to the IETF. Only the Sponsoring Entity could do that. Knowing that this is true and continuing to violate the agreement may be fraud by wire - This is where it gets messy; the current boiler plate says that to participate you have to turn over IP you don't own... and per the agreement you likely signed with your corporate sponsor, to participate in the IETF through the employer's Email GW you have to convey IP that you NO LONGER have formal rights to. Further, to protect the IETF you MUST represent to the IETF that you have this contractual authority; which as it turns out only very few if any actually do and the misrepresentation of may be a federal crime. NoteWell - Private Company's and their IETF participation - This makes the IETF's NoteWell provisions ineffective because no matter what the "Sponsored Employee or Contractor" says once they sign that AUP they would then need another specific agreement/exemption to set aside the claims of the Sponsor to those IP's they were to contribute to the IETF. No one would issue such a Email Release - No one in their right mind would issue such a release against their Email servers. It would make the internal IP much more difficult to protect. Likewise, no company sending staff to participate in the IETF except those that have formal Standards Practices would likely have any assignment of rights provisions for their Standards Practice Staff to be excluded from other IP c
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
David - the problem is that the members that NOMCOM is supposed to represent never got to say whether they where happy with someone else essentially holding a proxy for them. The Process is flawed in that it forces one to rely on the word of the parties in the process and that means that any time one disagrees with them, that this becomes an insult to those individuals. This is not professionally competent it's grossly negligent in my book and well, its the IETF. Todd Glassey - Original Message - From: "Nelson, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process Noel Chiappa writes... > ...I think perhaps the most useful one in practise is > another one which I mentioned earlier: > > >> Rather than having everyone spend ten minutes on > >> deciding who to select, a subset (which the random > >> draw hopefully makes reasonably representative of > >> the group as a whole) does a more in-depth and > >> thought-through selection. I agree. Since this thread has been going done the path of civic governance models, let me elaborate one that supports the current NOMCOM model. In my area, many towns govern themselves via Town Meeting, in which all voters are invited to a deliberative session to pass budgets, ordinances and the like. When all goes according to plan, there is an open exchange of information and a reasoned debate on the issues prior to each vote. Many claim this to be the "true democracy". Other towns have decided that the population has grown too large for Town Meeting to be practical and effective. One alternative is Representative Town Meeting. The electorate chooses (by election) a tractable number of representatives to attend the Town Meeting on their behalf. These representatives debate the issues and vote them up or down. 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. Quite frankly, I don't see a need to substantially change this model. ___ 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
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
Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
Andy - Financially Motivated companies can maneuver and abuse the current process ass 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: 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
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Processratherthansome
- Original Message - From: "Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:51 PM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Processratherthansome > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the > > power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. > > After studying this statement for a while, I am unable to find any semantic > content in it; frankly, all I can find is vaporous rhetoric. The more I try > and understand what it's trying to say, the less sense I can make of it. How > the "power of incumbency" has any ability to influence the value of a > particular line of reasoning is utterly beyond me. Try googling Incumbant Abuse and see what it says... > An incumbent can say > something, but that doesn't mean anyone has to put much weight on it, any more > than we have to put any weight on things you say. Really - you mean in an process where the external's have no say, that the incumbant's say isnt more weighty? Why do you think the US presidency has term limits? > > Let me make a few points that come to mind when I consider what you might > possibly have been trying to say. > > First, the existing I* management personnel have minimal influence on the > personnel decisions made by the NomComm (other than liaisons, who don't get a > vote in the decisions). So is there any way in which the incumbents are using > the "power of incumbency" to decide who gets appointed? yes since the selection of the NOMCOM folks happens in a vacuum. > > Furthermore, the NomComm is a randomly selected subset of the people who would > get to vote (in the most recent proposal), if we in fact had voting. Which implies if we had voting that those individuals making all the decisions with what have been constrained as proxies for the rest of the membership; wouldnt vote or would vote identically to the NOMCOM process. > It's not > like it's a whole different group of people, or a carefully selected biased > set, or something. So what makes you think the personnel decisions made by the > larger group would be significantly different from those made by the subset? > If randomly selected subsets were not reasonably representative, the whole > concept of statistical polling would not work. > > > Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could > > find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. > > The irony level in this statement would stun a blue whale, let alone an ox. As does your argulemt Noel. > > > (And my apologies to everyone on the list for wasting bandwidth, and space in > all your in-boxes, on this, but sometimes things are said which need a reply, > even though the reply is likely an utter waste of time.) > > Noel > > ___ > 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
Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an openElection Process
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: 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: > 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
