Joe, > > > 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. > > > I disagree; short of funding candidates or reducing the workload (the > latter, IMO, would be more appropriate), the list of willing candidates is > a significant part of the problem. You were tieing funding to that ability to have a formal voting process. That's what I was/am disagreeing with. However, here you are citing factors that might affect the nature and size of the pool of candidates and I *completely* agree with you, including what is the preferred change. > .. > > 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". > > > > That is a kind of a voting process. Formally, sure. However discussions in the IETF, about "voting" always use it to mean "by the plenary", ie, by the membership. 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