Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an openElection Process

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

 



Sorry Andy - about that my fat fingered double SS turns 'as' into... Sorry.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an openElection
Process


> Andy - Financially Motivated companies can maneuver and abuse the current
> process

as

> simply as have 5 or voices on any mailing list.
>
> What happens is that the IESG says there were be only one WG of any type
and
> so that eliminates because those running the WG regularly refuse to accept
> initiatives with they either personally don't like or that threaten others
> that are under way in their WG's...
>
> For instance - would Harald H ever let me run an initiative through IPR? -
> not a chance and his refusal to allow me to file my drafts under his WG is
a
> violation of the IETF charter, and tortuous interference by he and the
IESG
> to prevent me from 'changing how the IETF operates'.
>
> The issue is that Peer-Review without proper oversight is an invitation to
> fraud and tortuous interference with others initiatives and the IETF is
hip
> deep in the middle of it IMHO
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open
> Election Process
>
>
> > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > >> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >
> > >> I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in
> > >> which the representatives are chosen by a random selection
> > >> process, rather than by election.  The outcome, which
> > >> supports in-depth consideration and substantial, informed
> > >> debate, is much the same.
> > >
> > > The NOMCON process is certainly grounded in academic theories of
> governance that were popular in the 80s. Many of them attempt to provide a
> practical implementation of Rawl's theory of justice.
> > >
> > > The problem I see is NOT who gets elected but the lack of authority
and
> mandate. The reason that the time spent on NEWTRACK was wasted is that
> nobody feels that they have a mandate to change anything.
> > >
> > > As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants
> that produces on average less than 3 standards a year and typically takes
> ten years to produce even a specification.
> > >
> >
> > I think Quality and Timeliness are real problems (unlike this one),
> > but the IETF output is much better than you suggest, and IMO it
> > is improving.
> >
> > I do not want NOMCOM to be replaced by an election process.
> > I want dedicated volunteers to continue the in-depth selection
> > process.  I have no faith whatsoever that the community-at-large
> > would put any significant effort into an election process.  I am
concerned
> > that financially motivated companies would abuse the election process
> > to gain more control of the IETF.  Then massive efforts would be needed
> > to fix the new mess.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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