Subject: RE: Voting (again)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:46:28 -0700

> The problem with voting is that the IETF does not have a 
> membership list, so 
> there is no real basis for running a "vote". The nomcom 
> process is intended as 
> a surrogate, randomly selecting motivated "representatives".

The criteria applied for membership of NOMCON could be applied to direct
voting rights without any difficulty.

The issue as you point out later is the size of the pool of candidates
which is largely constrained by the workload that the IESG has taken on
for itself. At present there is no mechanism that allows the IETF
membership to say 'stop spending your time doing what you are doing and
instead attend to these other tasks which are much more important'.

The current IESG model is to play professor/thesis adviser to the RFC
editors' graduate student. This is not a very surprising model given how
the IETF started. 

The model I want to move to would give the IESG and IAB considerably
greater influence in the development of the Internet than they currently
exercise. At present there is nobody who has the authority to represent
the IETF membership.

If we are ever going to deploy IPv6 successfully or undertake any of the
major infrastructure projects that the IETF has been sitting on for a
decade there has to be a negotiation that takes place between the
parties whose buy in required for deployment. The current model of 'we
decide, you comply' is not working. The fear seems to be that the minute
the IETF recognizes that there is any stakeholder in the furture of the
Internet other than itself that it will loose all influence.

The Internet is no longer driven by the production of code. 

> The model worked well when the IETF was dominated by a very 
> large core of 
> highly experienced participants with a similar framework and base of 
> experience for IETF process.  

The IETF worked well when it was smaller than 150 people and has not
worked at all after it passed the Dunbar limit.

There are some realy fundamental constraints on human organizations
which most institutions understand and respect. Engineers have a habit
of not valuing expertise from outside their field. They also have a
habit of looking for a situation in which there are no constraints on
technical excellence, no time pressures and no accountability.

> Over the years, the nomcom has often cited the reason for 
> retaining someone as "no one else can do the job".

Yes, and this has often led to the retention of the most controvertial
members.

> The idea that an international standards body for a global 
> infrastructure 
> service is THAT dependent upon a single person ought to be a 
> rather large red 
> flag to the community that some very basic changes are needed.

I agree.

Given the infrequency with which Dave and myself agree on anything this
is not insignificant.

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

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:56:39 -0700

> voting rights without any difficulty.

Agreed, except that this community has a preference for rejecting kings,
and preferring rough consensus and running code. It's hard to reject the
officials of other organizations and appoint our own representatives to
do anything more than coordinate internally.

> editors' graduate student. This is not a very surprising model given how

I don't agree that this is how they operated in the past as much as the
present; IMO, in the past they acted more as coordinators and
facilitators, but now they're acting as judge and jury.

> exercise. At present there is nobody who has the authority to represent

And what would that achieve? another august body whose proclamations
would be quoted but otherwise ignored?

And what does 'greater influence' constitute? They already have
judge/jury power beyond what has served the community well, IMO.

> The Internet is no longer driven by the production of code.

IM, the Web, P2P sharing, etc. are all counterexamples to this.

Joe

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:13:33 +0200

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
 
> The criteria applied for membership of NOMCON could be
> applied to direct voting rights without any difficulty.

Selling out vs, pseudo-random ?  So far the worst idea I've
understood on this list.
 
> The model I want to move to would give the IESG and IAB
> considerably greater influence in the development

No, it would openly sell them to the paying industry.  At
the moment eyes wide shut I can pretend that I'm a "member".
Without this delusion I'd refuse to work for free and look
for greener pastures.

> there is nobody who has the authority to represent the IETF
> membership.

Something wrong with Brian, IESG, or IAB ?  If I don't like
what they do I can simply say so.

> there has to be a negotiation that takes place between the
> parties whose buy in required for deployment.

One of the more funny MARID experiences were the dozens of
one-time-posters all declaring "yes, we will deploy Sender-ID".
Surreal.
                     Bye, Frank

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:35:10 -0700

I will just address the nomcom topics and also comment on general voting.

The last topic first: organizations such as IEEE (not SA, but the entire 
IEEE) and ACM conduct all member voting to elect presidents and other 
officers.  I never return my votes; as far as I am concerned it is a 
huge waste of paper with the multiple ballots they send out (I don't 
know the numbers, but suspect many/most ACM members don't even know the 
current office members).  I strongly suspect that that will be the case 
with the IETF also if voting were ever to be introduced.  What's more 
consider also the possibility of a few companies or "interest groups" 
colluding to elect a "warm body" for any of the positions.  What if the 
entire IESG and IAB voted in is from companies A and B, consisting 
potentially of "suits" who registered for 2 out of the past 3 IETF 
meetings  (costs 2 * $500 + and two same day return air tickets)?

Is the Nomcom perfect?  No.  In fact, I was not quite happy with some of 
the aspects.  However, it has been tinkered with and in many cases for 
the better (e.g., no more than 2 people from the same affiliation can be 
on the Nomcom; wish we do that for IAB, IESG and IAOC also), and I think 
that (viz., small changes to Nomcom) would be the model for the near future.

On Nomcom returning "controversial" members, consider the possibility 
that a vocal minority (in fact, even a very few vocal people) labeling 
an IAB/IESG member as such.  Even if that is the consensus of the 
community, Nomcom would need feedback from several people with 
(verifiable) examples, and nominations for potential candidates, who are 
interested and qualified.  (It might also be worthwhile to remember that 
Nomcom receives positive feedback too.  I guess the word controversial 
already covers that.)

As a nomcom member, I have put a good amount of time in reading answers 
to questionnaires, reviewing feedback, interviewing candidates and 
participating in lengthy discussions in making my decisions.  I don't 
think I will be able to put even 1/10th of the time, if that were to be 
on a yearly basis.  The only downside being on the Nomcom is that, if 
one wins the lottery only once in a lifetime, I used up mine :-).

regards,
Lakshminath