Ned Eliot - why fix the process??? - lets just turn the IETF into a democracy and every member gets a vote.and that way the process isn't needed. ISOC members should probably also get to vote eh? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Eliot Lear" <lear@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:10 PM Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process > > Ned, > > > Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem > > > that > > > arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in > > > this case > > > WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics. > > > I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the > > problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the > > same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many ways (not > > that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the circumstances I *still* > > believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has > > ensured the integrity of the process. > > First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity of the > list and result publication can be addressed trivially by having the > secretariat provide the list they received for vetting purposes as well as the > result they handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but AFAIK > you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't deal with your > concerns, both in the present situation and should a similar situation ever > arise in the future. (in fact I think you said that this would resolve the > issue for you, this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this solution to > your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no need to comment on it > further. > > Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how the community can > be confident that the process wasn't gamed in the fashion I have previously > described. By building formal accountability into the Role Responsibility and by auditing the actions of the role therein. > AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I > have to say I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times more > serious than something that can be checked quite easily. Ths issue is not oversight in real-time but rather several years later and a Standards Entity's "Adminitsrative Processes" in which the words "Fair and Open" are so important that the Entity absorbs some overhead to prove its integrity in an ongoing manner. - OK that's the 200KM view What it really means is that processes in which any reviewable or challengable decisions are made are made transparent and with a trail of evidence from. This is about the design of the whole NOMCOM process. My take personally is that the best solution is that the IETF Membership is recognized formally and allowed to vote - on any and all positions from AD up. Then none of this hocus pocus is necessary. I think we would find the IETF a very heavly voted democracy and what I mean by that is that the voter turnout in IETF elections would be high. Todd > > In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here. > > Ned > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf