-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Crocker wrote: > 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. Agreed - it was poolsize I was alluding to. >> .. >> >>> 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. That holds true for for voting in the US, but we use representatives and vote indirectly. Ditto for the IETF, except that we use a random process to select the representatives. Unless we believe that there is statistical significance to the sample thus selected, our current voting system (which is what it is) is broken... Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCXWEjE5f5cImnZrsRAgo1AJ9YfwKJElvcOXhrU/3Euiw5r9J46QCgo11b dUmVWGTvO6bN0e56hE6nkAY= =XV/i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf