ietf has members? when did that happen Todd?
--bill (checking for his membership card, reviewing tax records for missed
membership dues, etc...)
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:10:41AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> Ned Eliot - why fix the process??? - lets just turn the IETF into a
> democracy and every member gets a vote.and that way the process isn't
> needed.
>
> ISOC members should probably also get to vote eh?
>
> Todd
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
>
>
> > > Ned,
> > > > Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem
> > > > that
> > > > arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in
> > > > this case
> > > > WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics.
> >
> > > I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the
> > > problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the
> > > same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many ways (not
> > > that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the circumstances I *still*
> > > believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has
> > > ensured the integrity of the process.
> >
> > First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity of
> the
> > list and result publication can be addressed trivially by having the
> > secretariat provide the list they received for vetting purposes as well as
> the
> > result they handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but
> AFAIK
> > you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't deal with your
> > concerns, both in the present situation and should a similar situation
> ever
> > arise in the future. (in fact I think you said that this would resolve the
> > issue for you, this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this
> solution to
> > your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no need to comment on
> it
> > further.
> >
> > Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how the community
> can
> > be confident that the process wasn't gamed in the fashion I have
> previously
> > described.
>
> By building formal accountability into the Role Responsibility and by
> auditing the actions of the role therein.
>
> > AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I
> > have to say I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times
> more
> > serious than something that can be checked quite easily.
>
> Ths issue is not oversight in real-time but rather several years later and a
> Standards Entity's "Adminitsrative Processes" in which the words "Fair and
> Open" are so important that the Entity absorbs some overhead to prove its
> integrity in an ongoing manner. - OK that's the 200KM view
>
> What it really means is that processes in which any reviewable or
> challengable decisions are made are made transparent and with a trail of
> evidence from. This is about the design of the whole NOMCOM process.
>
> My take personally is that the best solution is that the IETF Membership is
> recognized formally and allowed to vote - on any and all positions from AD
> up. Then none of this hocus pocus is necessary. I think we would find the
> IETF a very heavly voted democracy and what I mean by that is that the voter
> turnout in IETF elections would be high.
>
> Todd
>
> >
> > In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here.
> >
> > Ned
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
