Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:51:56 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

    > 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. 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.

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?

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. 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.

(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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:30:54 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election
Processratherthansome

> particular line of reasoning is utterly beyond me.

 Try googling Incumbant Abuse and see what it says...

> An incumbent can 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?

> the "power of incumbency" to decide who gets appointed?

yes since the selection of the NOMCOM folks happens in a vacuum.

> 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

As does your argulemt Noel.