ietf has members? when did that happen Todd? --bill (checking for his membership card, reviewing tax records for missed membership dues, etc...) On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:10:41AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf