+1 Bob
On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It's really annoying when a thread drifts to a wildly different topic > without somebody thinking to change the Subject header. > > My comments on nominees would be much less frank if I knew they > would be published. In fact, I doubt if I would make any at all. > > Here's a comment I sent in a number of years ago. > > "Arrogant, sometimes rude, not interested in listening to other > people. I think <pronoun> would be an abysmal AD." > > In public? I don't think so. The whole idea of honest feedback only > works when kept confidential. > > As for voting, I understand Mary's frustration at the lack of > participation, but this really must not become a popularity > contest and certainly not be put at risk of capture by companies > or countries that send a lot of people to meetings. After all, > this thread started out about how to *not* need to go to meetings. > > Regards > Brian > > On 2011-10-27 16:00, Ross Callon wrote: >> Mary; >> >> Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom >> to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without >> hearing these comments? >> >> Ross >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mary >> Barnes >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:52 PM >> To: Peter Saint-Andre >> Cc: John C Klensin; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>>> (e.g., the NomCom >>>> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). >>> no problem. We stop having the nomcom. >> Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the >> members vote. Easy. >> >> [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow >> anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom >> process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the >> Nomcom, you can vote. I personally believe that voting would be better >> than the current model. As it is, a very small percentage of the >> participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or >> providing feedback: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2) >> >> So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually >> get more folks caring about who the leaders are. It would also save a >> tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom. >> [/MB] >> >> [Also, ducking] >> >> Mary. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
