This is a useful and necessary change. A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs directly. Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have an Internet Architecture Board that stopped trying to do architecture after the Kobe revolt. That is a problem because the architecture is not a static property, without direction it degrades over time. Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree with. Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure that the members of the IAB get along and to keep out anyone who might rock the boat. As a result the only members of the awkward squad who get appointed are the ones who are committed to defending the status quo at all costs, not the people who point out what is not working. Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of thing in IETF. We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work. [*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those appointed, not so great for the rest of us. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Sam Hartman<hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for bringing this to our attention. > > Having reviewed the draft, I support publication of this document as a > BCP. I think it is a long-needed change. I understand that there are > important tradeoffs involved, and while I acknowledge that there are > disadvantages to this change, I think that it is a significant net > good. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf