Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:00:30 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>

    > Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections 

Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now. It's
called democracy - and you're outvoted.

Remember, we had this system for quite a while before the last major rework
of the process (i.e. we'd all seen it in action for some years, and were able
to judge how well was working), and the outcome of that rework was a
standards document - i.e. something suject to community approval, i.e.
democracy - which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If
people weren't generally happy with that basic framework, it would have been
obvious at the Last Call of the document.

IMO, the IETF has some significant problems, but the process for selecting
people for leadership positions isn't one of them.

Now please stop beating this dead horse, on which you obviously don't have
much support. 

	Noel

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:07:01 -0700

Noel - this isn't the US Congress - and because people here in very limited
distribution's comment on process - does not mean that the rest of the IETF
has signed some proxy to allow this group to continue to operate as though
it and only it owns the IETF.

The facts remain - most IETF WG participants have no idea what is going on
here - and that is not their fault - its the fault of the design of the IETF

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some

> Because the members are generally happy with the system we have now.

No Noel - only some members of this limited WG are happy - most members of
the IETF have no idea what's being done here or have any idea how it affects
them

> It's

Are you stoned - this is nothing like a democracy and your pompous
commentary says everything I need to hear about your stance here Acedemic
Dude. Its a very small pool of opinions of which NONE of the SPONSORS are
included.

> democracy -

Sorry Noel - this is not a democracy and that is what is wrong with it. I
bet that if you asked all of the IETF's WG Members whether they wanted to
convert the Management of the IETF to a Membership-based Vote they would say
YES. In fact I ran a small survey and got a 97% YES response. 97%...

> which made adjustments, but retained the basic framework. If

No, sorry Academia-Boy - what would have been obvious is that the very
limited number of people working on these documents seem to take perverse
pleasure in recreating other's worlds - your commentary and its arrogance
are the basis of everything that is wrong with the IETF IMHO.

> people for leadership positions isn't one of them.

Yes it is. As is the accountability and performance issues - they are all
tied to the same set of controls in the workflow.

But hey - I have met many Acedemic Parties that use the IETF as their
publishing house to allow them to continue publishing which is critical to
their performance and continued space in the non-working world.

> Now please stop beating this dead horse, on which you obviously don't have

You mean support from those people that any changes to the IETF threaten?

---

From: "Rob Evans" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:37:39 +0100

Todd,

As one of the randoms (and speaking for nobody but myself)...

> here - and that is not their fault - its the fault of the design of the IETF

Personally I've no huge problem with the nomcom.

However, if you feel it needs to change, then the usual method would
be to write two drafts.  The first a problem statement describing the
issues with the current system, and the second a proposal of how to
change it.  That way there is something concrete to discuss.

If people have no idea what is going on, one of the reasons could be
because it is spread out over several dozen email messages rather than
a couple of focused documents.

> YES. In fact I ran a small survey and got a 97% YES response. 97%...

I guess this is relatively meaningless without a context into the
community from which the responses were received.

All the best,
Rob

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:50:14 -0700

Cool  Rob - how about we ask ALL of the other members of all of the other
WG's since these rules and processes effect them.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Evans" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some

> change it.  That way there is something concrete to discuss.

I wrote a draft about Open and Fair and was shot down for it. What I am
saying is that anything that threatens the ruling class of the IETF is just
that a threat to the ruling class. It is that Class of specialists who
refuse to be accountable for their actions that need to be addressed.

> a couple of focused documents.

Or 10 or so RFC's which even the Authors of cant ultimately say what is in
control at any given instant.

> community from which the responses were received.

Actually it was done externally to this WG intentionally and it was stunning
to find out that no-one outside these key WG's has any idea as to what is
happening with the IETF or its processes.