Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... > The real point of a working group process is to establish the coalition > of support you need to get the work deployed. > > And this has to be taken into account when you are considering votes. > ... > > The problem is even bigger when the chair decides to abuse their role. Deliberate or accidental, the phrasing of the question is known to have a substantial effect on the outcome of a survey. It might be useful to have a standard protocol for such questions, e.g. starting with the question "should we accept this doc as a WG item to go to proposed standard", many people could be likely to hum 'yes', even though a preferred outcome is to see the doc before deciding what track to place it in. IMO, a scripted set of questions might go a long way to avoiding such biases (and make WG meetings run more smoothly, as well). As to a different key point: > Why can't we elect the WG chairs? Why can't we elect the ADs? ... When the IETF pays for the 60% (80%, 100%, take your pick) of an AD's salary, they can elect ADs. Unfortunately, the current system is heavily biased towards keeping existing ADs - who, like career politicians, can secure financial support from their employers for continued participation based on their current position. Perhaps it's time for term limits ;-) Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf