> When the IETF pays for the 60% (80%, 100%, take your pick) of an AD's > salary, they can elect ADs. Funding of candidates isn't the issue. The problem with voting is that the IETF does not have a membership list, so there is no real basis for running a "vote". The nomcom process is intended as a surrogate, randomly selecting motivated "representatives". The model worked well when the IETF was dominated by a very large core of highly experienced participants with a similar framework and base of experience for IETF process. The considerable diversity of the current IETF and the lack of pervasive, common knowledge about IETF management, process, track record, and technology, means that the otherwise diligent nomcom participants must rely too heavily on input from the current IETF management. The result of this is not at all surprising, as you note: >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 ;-) Over the years, the nomcom has often cited the reason for retaining someone as "no one else can do the job". The idea that an international standards body for a global infrastructure service is THAT dependent upon a single person ought to be a rather large red flag to the community that some very basic changes are needed. The nature of these changes has nothing to do with the secretariat or any of the other administrative enhancements that the IETF has been implementing for the last 3 years. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf