----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:51 PM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Processratherthansome > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the > > power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. > > After studying this statement for a while, I am unable to find any semantic > content in it; frankly, all I can find is vaporous rhetoric. The more I try > and understand what it's trying to say, the less sense I can make of it. How > the "power of incumbency" has any ability to influence the value of a > particular line of reasoning is utterly beyond me. Try googling Incumbant Abuse and see what it says... > An incumbent can say > something, but that doesn't mean anyone has to put much weight on it, any more > than we have to put any weight on things you say. Really - you mean in an process where the external's have no say, that the incumbant's say isnt more weighty? Why do you think the US presidency has term limits? > > Let me make a few points that come to mind when I consider what you might > possibly have been trying to say. > > First, the existing I* management personnel have minimal influence on the > personnel decisions made by the NomComm (other than liaisons, who don't get a > vote in the decisions). So is there any way in which the incumbents are using > the "power of incumbency" to decide who gets appointed? yes since the selection of the NOMCOM folks happens in a vacuum. > > Furthermore, the NomComm is a randomly selected subset of the people who would > get to vote (in the most recent proposal), if we in fact had voting. Which implies if we had voting that those individuals making all the decisions with what have been constrained as proxies for the rest of the membership; wouldnt vote or would vote identically to the NOMCOM process. > It's not > like it's a whole different group of people, or a carefully selected biased > set, or something. So what makes you think the personnel decisions made by the > larger group would be significantly different from those made by the subset? > If randomly selected subsets were not reasonably representative, the whole > concept of statistical polling would not work. > > > Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could > > find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. > > The irony level in this statement would stun a blue whale, let alone an ox. As does your argulemt Noel. > > > (And my apologies to everyone on the list for wasting bandwidth, and space in > all your in-boxes, on this, but sometimes things are said which need a reply, > even though the reply is likely an utter waste of time.) > > Noel > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf