-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>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 criteria applied for membership of NOMCON could be applied to direct > voting rights without any difficulty. Agreed, except that this community has a preference for rejecting kings, and preferring rough consensus and running code. It's hard to reject the officials of other organizations and appoint our own representatives to do anything more than coordinate internally. > The issue as you point out later is the size of the pool of candidates > which is largely constrained by the workload that the IESG has taken on > for itself. At present there is no mechanism that allows the IETF > membership to say 'stop spending your time doing what you are doing and > instead attend to these other tasks which are much more important'. > > The current IESG model is to play professor/thesis adviser to the RFC > editors' graduate student. This is not a very surprising model given how > the IETF started. I don't agree that this is how they operated in the past as much as the present; IMO, in the past they acted more as coordinators and facilitators, but now they're acting as judge and jury. > The model I want to move to would give the IESG and IAB considerably > greater influence in the development of the Internet than they currently > exercise. At present there is nobody who has the authority to represent > the IETF membership. And what would that achieve? another august body whose proclamations would be quoted but otherwise ignored? And what does 'greater influence' constitute? They already have judge/jury power beyond what has served the community well, IMO. > If we are ever going to deploy IPv6 successfully or undertake any of the > major infrastructure projects that the IETF has been sitting on for a > decade there has to be a negotiation that takes place between the > parties whose buy in required for deployment. The current model of 'we > decide, you comply' is not working. The fear seems to be that the minute > the IETF recognizes that there is any stakeholder in the furture of the > Internet other than itself that it will loose all influence. > > The Internet is no longer driven by the production of code. IM, the Web, P2P sharing, etc. are all counterexamples to this. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCXWtmE5f5cImnZrsRAizDAJ9ygMkMvo9kUh/mXtH5DQ5cLDai1wCdG1yd ldlzYiUmYHKFrYlu9Ugf0cw= =IkKn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf