Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. Thanks --Dean On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. It's called democracy - and you're outvoted. I think that in fact, members aren't very happy with the system that we have now. If they were happy, they wouldn't be changing it. I think that the system has created a very closed, and very unfair management selection process that is not benefiting the members are large, but benefiting a few private interests. Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e. democracy - which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been obvious at the Last Call of the document. IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting people for leadership positions isn't one of them. I think the IETF and ISOC do have some very significant problems, and that those problems are primarilly mismanagement, disloyalty, and improper use of the ISOC/IETF/IESG/IAB to benefit the personal and adverse interests of the management. The ISOC/IETF employees have accrued some torts against the organization for defamation and defamatory false reports of member misconduct. There is plenty of documentation now of disloyalty, fraudulent misrepresentation, collusion, and bad faith. To see a little bit, look at the Appeal submitted recently to the IAB: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.pdf or http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.html -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Isn't he barred from posting here? On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. Thanks --Dean On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. It's called democracy - and you're outvoted. I think that in fact, members aren't very happy with the system that we have now. If they were happy, they wouldn't be changing it. I think that the system has created a very closed, and very unfair management selection process that is not benefiting the members are large, but benefiting a few private interests. Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e. democracy - which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been obvious at the Last Call of the document. IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting people for leadership positions isn't one of them. I think the IETF and ISOC do have some very significant problems, and that those problems are primarilly mismanagement, disloyalty, and improper use of the ISOC/IETF/IESG/IAB to benefit the personal and adverse interests of the management. The ISOC/IETF employees have accrued some torts against the organization for defamation and defamatory false reports of member misconduct. There is plenty of documentation now of disloyalty, fraudulent misrepresentation, collusion, and bad faith. To see a little bit, look at the Appeal submitted recently to the IAB: http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.pdf or http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Appeal_of_IESG_decision_of_July_10_2006-v4.html -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Tim/::1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Tim Chown wrote: Isn't he barred from posting here? If by he you mean Dean Anderson, yes. As I observed, the delete key is handy. Brian On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:51:27PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: I am forwarding this on behalf of Dean Anderson. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Fw: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
On Thursday, September 14, 2006 01:37:11 PM +0100 Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't he barred from posting here? Perhaps, but one of the checks against abuse of the ability to bar posters is that they can still get a point across if they can convince someone else to forward their comments. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
