Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:54:50 -0400

On Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:11:51 AM -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>
> James Galvin wrote:
>>   But there is a part of the process that is not public: the
>> actual selection of eligible volunteers.
>
> 1) The criteria are public.  2) The result is public, with the intention
> of time for review.  I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2
> could be made public and still function.  Since the criteria are
> reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on the
> "decision" process is meaningful.

I agree.  The important property here is not that any part of the process 
be observable, but that the results be independently verifiable.  That is 
done by making all of the inputs(*) public before the process runs, and 
using a well-defined, fixed algorithm.

(*) For this purpose, the random data itself is not an "input", but the 
identification of the random source(s) and exactly how they are to be 
sampled is.

> At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too
> rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the
> underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review and
> approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the
> unknown or, at least, controversy.

Really, as soon as the need or ability to make a decision as to whether to 
reset had been made, we had already lost.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:21:02 -0700

Jorge - since I assume you did the trust filing work, why is the Trust
apparently a Virginia Entity when the ISOC and IETF as such are Washington
DC entities? What was the purpose? to make it more difficult to properly
serve officers of the Trust? I am curious.

I also fail to note anything in the IETF's Boiler plate about the Federal
Trade Commission who does arbitrate matters for trade issue disputes which
any Standards Developments would be constrained by...

Any answers?

Todd Glassey