> I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I thought
> it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
>
> An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective. I was
> assuming, perhaps incorrectly,that you subscribed to that view.
Most years, I put my name into the nomcom list. I've been on nomcom twice.
I believe in the process, but I also believe it needs significant changing.
The current design of the nomcom process works well when there is a large
percentage of the volunteer pool that has extensive experience with both the
technology and the IETF process. This makes it likely that a useful portion of
the resulting nomcom will be savvy about IETF issues.
Over the years, that percentage has gone down dramatically. This has resulted
in recent nomcoms that have very little real IETF process experience among the
voting members.
That is a guarantee that a) those voting will be naive, and b) that the
non-voting members -- ie, the representatives from existing IETF management --
will have undue sway.
Again, there have been proposals to make changes to the process, but they have
gotten predictably derailed.
>If you
> come to the conclusion that nomcom doesn't work and are still interested
> in fixing the problem, it seems like you have to show people that nomcom
> doesn't work. I don't know how to do that in a fair and reasonable way
> without specifics.
I did that, Sam. But I chose to do it without pointing at specific nomcom
decisions that were a mistake, since I'd rather focus on the issues than get
sidetracked by all the outrage at personal attacks. (Do you see a
double-bind, here? Get criticized for personal attacks if I'm specific. Get
criticized for vagueness if I don't.)
So, instead, I am trying to point out both clear and direct design flaws, and
citing patterns of concern that have been expressed.
When there is a pattern of concern, there is a problem that needs fixing.
> If you do think nomcom is effective then you are completely right that
> telling nomcom confidentially about problems with particular ADs is a fine
> way to go about making change.
Actually, the degree of confidentiality in the current problem is a serious
problem. First of all, how can the average participant know who to make
comments on? Second, I will repeat that the social barrier against making
explicit criticisms is really quite high. The problem with your own
willingness to express your views -- or mine, or many others -- is that it
makes us entirely insensitive to the position of "average" participants.
Further, the confidentiality ensures that a dialogue about concerns does not
happen.
So, I chose to cite a common rationale used by the nomcom ("there were no
other choices") and suggest that the regular occurrence of that rationale is
sufficient indication of a deep, serious problem that needs addressing.
> I think however that you and I disagree about how to conduct
> organizational introspection. It is certainly a topic on which reasonable
> people disagree.
I suspect our experience base is rather different.
> I'll close with one thought about RFC 3774. As far as I can tell, section
> 2.6 does not actually make the claim that ADs were abusing their discuss
> power; it claims that there was a strong perception ADs were doing so.
SAM!! -- In the real world of organizational process, you are making a
distinction without a difference. I fully understand the nature of the
distinction you are raising, and I think it is an important question to ask,
but it is NOT reasonable to have that question derail efforts to make change.
When a community holds a perception that there is a problem, then there is a
problem.
> The solution to that problem is *not* to change how discusses work. The
> solution is to gather the necessary data to determine whether the
> perception reflects reality or whether we have a communication/education
> problem.
As I said, our base of experience with organizational and political processes
is clearly quite different.
> I think we're making strides in that direction. The tracker helps a lot.
No we are not. Not it does not.
It has nothing at all to do with the kind of issues I've been raising.
The predilection for confusing administrative change with changes to
underlying process has been an effective way to avoid dealing with real
issues.
> Changes in IESG culture help too. There is low tolerance for poorly
> specified discusses right now and very low tolerance for discusses that
> have not been written up.
Hmmm. Well, now that you cite that, I do realize that those issuing a Discuss
are far more accountable now than they used to be. In olden times, it
sometimes was not even possible to find out who issued the Discuss!
However, the mere fact of a single-AD veto is the problem.
That we now are assured of knowing who is doing the veto merely means that we
can engage in infinite, unproductive exchanges about their concerns. There is
no way to really counter the veto, when it is silly, other than an appeal.
At the least, an appeal should occur only after extensive effort to resolve
issues in other ways. The result is that, at the least, there will be -- and
is -- significant delay.
But again, please remember that going against IETF management is extremely
intimidating for most folks.
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