Re: A random sample of what?

[Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us>]

[ replying to john's two half-notes... ]

> We might even go further and argue that, logically and
> statistically, the pool of those who volunteer to serve on the
> nomcom consists of:
> 
> 	(i) People with an exceptional sense of service and
> ...
> 	
> 	(ii) People with axes to grind that give them sufficient
> ...
> 	
> 	(iii) People who have no clue as to what they are
> ...
> 
> Note that I do not claim that the latter two categories have any
> members: they might be empty, but the categories are logically
> necessary from the reasoning above.

john - i'm more of a pessimist than you, and i'm happy to stipulate that the above two sets are non-empty.



> One of those notes also suggested that my conclusion was not
> clear.  It has two parts:
> 
> (i) To the extent that "random sample of the IETF community and
> hence representative of it" would give the nomcom some special
> virtue or authority, it doesn't represent such a sample and
> hence does not have such virtue or authority as a result of that
> source/argument.

yes, i agree: it's random, not representative. and i wouldn't assign any virtue or vice to them other than to note that the ones that get to vote aren't currently officers.


> (ii) Even with a nomcom that was more representative, the value
> of checks and balances --including a serious and meaningful
> review and confirmation process-- seems clear.  I'm not sure
> whether such a process requires procedural changes or, as I
> think Marshall is effectively suggesting, just a bit more
> bravery on the part of the confirming bodies.

i wouldn't use the term "bravery", but you have the gist of it. if the nomcom feels strongly about something they should stick to it. if a confirming body feels strongly about something, they should stick to it.

ideally, there'd be no conflict. sometimes there is.

if there is a conflict, hopefully each side could convincingly explain to the other one why their position is reasonable. sometimes that doesn't happen.

if that's the case, it may take a few months (or upto a year) to resolve. i'd like to think that the iab and/or iesg can handle that. if not, there is potentially a much larger problem with our system of self-government...

/mtr