RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Clearly, we could choose to do that.
There are several drawbacks.

Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors the current approach. Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria. To counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings. Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on effectiveness for the job.

I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems.

If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election mode would be worth whatever problems it solved. However, without a clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see any point in trying to evaluate an alternative. Elections are not in and of themselves "good". For civil governments, they seem to be the best choice we can find.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member.

Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, &ct. of such.


All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]