> I also believe the nomcom process does provide > accountability. I think that the nomcom interview process > was more comprehensive than any job interview process I've > gone through. I think you make a fundamental error here, accountability is determined by whether we can get rid of someone, not by how they are appointed in the first place. The problem that arises with ADs is when they start insisting on silly ideas that they are personally invested in like the jihad against NAT, firewalls and anything else that 'breaks' the end-to-end principle. The IESG rules mean that any AD can vote 'Discuss'. Federal Judges are appointed by a system that has a large number of controls, but they are intentionally beyond accountability once they are appointed. It is extreemly unlikely that a NOMCON is ever going to change more than a small number of ADs because they understand that they have no mandate. One NOMCON made major changes to the IAB but that is rare. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf