> Why do you think a decent-sized, randomly-selected subset of the IETF > (i.e. the NomComm) are taking actions that are substantially more > conservative (in terms of keeping people) than the IETF as a whole would > do? The *whole point* of the NomComm is for it to have roughly the same > views as the IETF as a whole, except in a smaller body. So what makes you > think 1. There is nothing at all random about the selection process for nomcom, since the pool of candidates is highly non-random. 2. The makeup of nomcom members has changed dramatically in recent years. It used to be that a substantial fraction of the committee were people with extensive IETF experience, both technical and process management. That is no longer true. 3. Nomcoms in recent years have frequently renewed highly problematic ADs, under the claim that "no one else can do the job." Even more bizarre, is that it does not seem to strike anyone as fundamentally broken that a global standards organization, for the technology of a critical infrastructure service, would be subject to such a lack of choice, and that we ought to find a way to fix it. But really, if folks want to argue that the Nomcom is somehow a legitimately "representative sample" of the rest of the IETF, there ought to be some careful reference to sampling techniques and the rest of that realm of research methodology. Given the current IETF track record, in taking a very long time to produce specifications that are slow to get adopted -- if they ever do -- we might also want to wonder just a bit about that "rest of the ietf". It was amusing, at the last IETF plenary, to hear someone say that if we are no careful, our good participants will go elsewhere. As if that has not already been happening... 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