Noel - this isn't the US Congress - and because people here in very limited distribution's comment on process - does not mean that the rest of the IETF has signed some proxy to allow this group to continue to operate as though it and only it owns the IETF. The facts remain - most IETF WG participants have no idea what is going on here - and that is not their fault - its the fault of the design of the IETF ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:00 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some > > From: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections > > Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. No Noel - only some members of this limited WG are happy - most members of the IETF have no idea what's being done here or have any idea how it affects them > It's > called democracy - and you're outvoted. Are you stoned - this is nothing like a democracy and your pompous commentary says everything I need to hear about your stance here Acedemic Dude. Its a very small pool of opinions of which NONE of the SPONSORS are included. > > Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework > of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able > to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a > standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e. > democracy - Sorry Noel - this is not a democracy and that is what is wrong with it. I bet that if you asked all of the IETF's WG Members whether they wanted to convert the Management of the IETF to a Membership-based Vote they would say YES. In fact I ran a small survey and got a 97% YES response. 97%... > which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If > people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been > obvious at the Last Call of the document. No, sorry Academia-Boy - what would have been obvious is that the very limited number of people working on these documents seem to take perverse pleasure in recreating other's worlds - your commentary and its arrogance are the basis of everything that is wrong with the IETF IMHO. > > IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting > people for leadership positions isn't one of them. Yes it is. As is the accountability and performance issues - they are all tied to the same set of controls in the workflow. But hey - I have met many Acedemic Parties that use the IETF as their publishing house to allow them to continue publishing which is critical to their performance and continued space in the non-working world. > > Now please stop beating this dead horse, on which you obviously don't have > much support. You mean support from those people that any changes to the IETF threaten? > > Noel _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf