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
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
todd, you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF aquired the attribute of members? open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate. what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in such an election? --bill On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:52:03AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place with NOMCOM Todd ___ 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 rather than some
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:36:38AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the IETF that if you like. great... i'd appreciate that. i stand by my claim that i am not a member of the IETF. I have attended IETF meetings, participated in discussion and debate, proposed work, developed code ... all of which were done in consultation with like-minded individuals. i've -never- signed up as a member, paid membership dues, nor am i aware of a process for becoming a member. The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF process er, does the WG have membership or is it an email list that has members? are you asserting that an email address on a list constitutes membership? More inline below. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some todd, you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF aquired the attribute of members? It has members when it needs to claim it voted on something to approve its deployment but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those who want the system to stay as it is today. the rabble don't vote. there is the occasional hum (thanks Marshall) to have the WG chairs guage consesus. the IESG and IAB vote... so the term members may apply there. but as to the occasional passerby whom may make a random comment or two, i posit that the case is not so clear. open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate. what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in such an election? Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the IETF were constrained by what this WG does.. and how, pray tell would there be an emperical, unbiased definition of active member ... thanks for your comments. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place with NOMCOM Todd ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
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. 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. Now please stop beating this dead horse, on which you obviously don't have much support. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Todd, As one of the randoms (and speaking for nobody but myself)... The facts remain - most IETF WG participants have no idea what is going on here - and that is not their fault - its the fault of the design of the IETF Personally I've no huge problem with the nomcom. However, if you feel it needs to change, then the usual method would be to write two drafts. The first a problem statement describing the issues with the current system, and the second a proposal of how to change it. That way there is something concrete to discuss. If people have no idea what is going on, one of the reasons could be because it is spread out over several dozen email messages rather than a couple of focused documents. YES. In fact I ran a small survey and got a 97% YES response. 97%... I guess this is relatively meaningless without a context into the community from which the responses were received. All the best, Rob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the IETF that if you like. The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF process that effects all of the other WG's for which they have no say or idea that this is actually happening. By the way - was this existence of the IPR or IETF WG disclosed to anyone - is there anything on the Website that talks about the Governance Models of the IETF being in constant flux? How about anything anywhere in any document forcing the Participants to maintain their knowledge of the current contractual terms and conditions for participating - or in getting the Sponsors' signoff therein as well? No? I didn't think so. The facts are simply that when this group changes the contractual terms for how the IETF works and operates that this effects many others who have initiatives underway and well - they have to be properly disclosed. Also its probable that because of the really poorly written boilerplate inclusions that those changes don't affect efforts underway inside the IETF when the changes that would impact those efforts occur. Let me explain - the T's and C's for an initiatives' participation are set at the time that initiative was started. Once the contract between the IETF and the Participants is set, its done. Since there is no set of terms and conditions wherein the previous contractual terms are upgraded or morphed to meet the newly updated participation T's and C's, those are not enforceable therein. You understand that this system means that the IETF needs to create some mapping of each Initiative and its set of rules constraining the contractual participation of the parties. The disclosure problem is that there is no hey its your responsibility to keep up with all the Rules Regs and T's and C's for this participation. notice and no process for announcing changes to the Group that they impact the most - that being the Participants in the IETF. So there is essentially no formal disclosure to anyone that the IETF's rules and processes and the contract between it and the participants has been changed. More inline below. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some todd, you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF aquired the attribute of members? It has members when it needs to claim it voted on something to approve its deployment but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those who want the system to stay as it is today. open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate. what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in such an election? Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the IETF were constrained by what this WG does.. The point is that the terms of this, the IETF's 2-party contract, cannot be changed unilatterally without notification of the relying parties. Its not legal, and Jorge will confirm this if asked. Its basic Contract law FWIU. --bill On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:52:03AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place with NOMCOM Todd ___ 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 rather than some
Cool Rob - how about we ask ALL of the other members of all of the other WG's since these rules and processes effect them. - Original Message - From: Rob Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some Todd, As one of the randoms (and speaking for nobody but myself)... The facts remain - most IETF WG participants have no idea what is going on here - and that is not their fault - its the fault of the design of the IETF Personally I've no huge problem with the nomcom. However, if you feel it needs to change, then the usual method would be to write two drafts. The first a problem statement describing the issues with the current system, and the second a proposal of how to change it. That way there is something concrete to discuss. I wrote a draft about Open and Fair and was shot down for it. What I am saying is that anything that threatens the ruling class of the IETF is just that a threat to the ruling class. It is that Class of specialists who refuse to be accountable for their actions that need to be addressed. If people have no idea what is going on, one of the reasons could be because it is spread out over several dozen email messages rather than a couple of focused documents. Or 10 or so RFC's which even the Authors of cant ultimately say what is in control at any given instant. YES. In fact I ran a small survey and got a 97% YES response. 97%... I guess this is relatively meaningless without a context into the community from which the responses were received. Actually it was done externally to this WG intentionally and it was stunning to find out that no-one outside these key WG's has any idea as to what is happening with the IETF or its processes. All the best, Rob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some
Bill - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:36:38AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the IETF that if you like. great... i'd appreciate that. Jorge - Are you ready to meet me in the FDC? i stand by my claim that i am not a member of the IETF. No actually you are a formal member as maintained here - You see only WG members contratually bound under NOTEWELL are allowed to comment on initiatives since there is NO FORMAL PROCESS for the IETF to take external commentary from non-members in place. The day-to-day membership fee paid is the transfer of the Ownership of the IP developed under as per Notewell or the other IP Conveyance Processes. Sorry - but you are paying dues - just not in cash... I have attended IETF meetings, participated in discussion and debate, proposed work, developed code ... all of which were done in consultation with like-minded individuals. You mean with other formal and dues-paying members of the IETF. i've -never- signed up as a member, Sure you did - the conveyance of the IP through the signing up on the Mailing List did that. Conveying the IP to the IETF is paying the membership fee. Further nothing makes you more a member than working here in this WG on the IETF's Processes. paid membership dues So those meetings you attended were free? no fee's therein? Cool - then since you or your sponsor's never paid for you to attend these meetings, nor neither of you paid for the infrasturtcure so that you could participate in the ongoing lists' genesis ... then I guess your right - (ahahahahaha - sorry what a crock). , nor am i aware of a process for becoming a member. Except that you are formally constrained by a set of terms and conditions and contracts for this participation, and you are allowed a voice so yes - you are a member of the IETF whether you like it or not. The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF process er, does the WG have membership or is it an email list that has members? Arent they one in the same. NoTEWELL and the contractual terms for participating creat the membership boundries therein. are you asserting that an email address on a list constitutes membership? Yes. And if you doubt that, try finding out what putting your email address on that list contractually constrained you to. You agreed to NOTEWELL and all of the changing terms that are being created herein didnt you? Also anyone formally participating under any set of Contractual Agreements with the IETF becomes a member based on that alone. A member of those mailing lists and a member of the IETF's Standards Workflow Processes. Sorry... More inline below. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some todd, you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF aquired the attribute of members? It has members when it needs to claim it voted on something to approve its deployment but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those who want the system to stay as it is today. the rabble don't vote. there is the occasional hum (thanks Marshall) to have the WG chairs guage consesus. the IESG and IAB vote... so the term members may apply there. but as to the occasional passerby whom may make a random comment or two, i posit that the case is not so clear. open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate. what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in such an election? Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the IETF were constrained by what this WG does.. and how, pray tell would there be an emperical, unbiased definition of active member ... thanks for your comments. --bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
