Hi -
From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Uh - Randy
that's because they all have formally constrained memberships
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
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
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
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: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open
- Original Message -
From: Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
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 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
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.
Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF
which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I
have found all of the problems.
Obviously. As Winston Churchill once remarked, Democracy is the worst possible
system of government, except for all the others.
The problem with
At 09:28 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I
have found all of the problems.
Obviously. As Winston Churchill once remarked, Democracy is the
worst possible system of
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;
11 matches
Mail list logo
