No Eric I don't object to the NOMCOM members being active in the IETF but what does that mean? That they have created IP that the IETF is the Owner of? And while, or after their document's are published? it makes all the difference. FWIW - Their being Management at the same time that they were subject-participants would be a clear conflict of interest. Being a publishing author of process-technology document and a WG Chair, AD or other NOMCOM role a Conflict based on any number of accountability issues. Especially if you were a WG Chair of the WG you were publishing in... Here is the deal - the IETF is a very important thing IMHO and needs to be preserved, but it also needs to be made impervious to and all personalities including mine and that means that it becomes totally fair and open - i.e. willing to have its processes challenged in the light of providing a fair and equitable platform of standards development. The core issue is not my objections to the lack of any positive government but rather the failing of the IESG and IETF Management to foster and promote more than one standard a year. This is a joke considering the billions of dollars that are spent on improving the IETF's IP portfolio at the expense of the Tax Payer and more importantly its a testament to the failure of the IESG as it sits today. The IETF and IESG need to produce at minimum 1/2 dozen or more standards per year IMHO otherwise they are violating their charter's and are exercising personal judgment rather than professional assessment's ... In fact no standards process should be allowed which don't have full project vetting and milestone definition plans. And when those milestones are completed the project advances automatically to the next stage. That being Proposed or Draft Standard. As long as the Interoperability Milestones and Implementation Port count's are met then this Standards Process is not something that the IESG should have a say in at all. They ARE NOT THE KEEPERS OF THE INTERNET. If anyone is - the members of the IETF and ISOC are. But the IESG sure isn't. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lack of communication here... The view from my knot hole is that back in the 1990s, the IETF was a meritocracy in which the power of proven technical insight plus running code determined our leadership. Our community has been steadily evolving as times and membership changed. Your posting reminds me from statements from the French Revolution roughly 200 years ago. The part of your posting that confuses me is the "every voice heard and counted"? Certainly you don't mean "every voice" since most people know nothing about Internet technologies. So what do you mean? I also fail to descern why you don't think that the curent approach works. Specifically, I'd prefer NOMCOM to be populated by people who actively participate in the IETF and who have a pulse on our community (i.e., I still buy into the concept of 'meritocracy' -- it has served us well). Do you really object to this? Why? From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >No Stewart it doesn't. The leadership in the IETF needs to be washed clean >and made pure again. That will only happen when all the smoke and mirrors' >are stripped clean and the will of the proletariat actually considered >instead of what is done today. >NOMCOM and a non-electoral model are what need to go away - The IETF needs >to be a place where EVERY VOICE is heard and counted. >Todd Glassey. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf