Re: Running code

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Loa and all,

Loa Andersson wrote:

> All,
>
> I'm not going to argue this much, but can't resist this one.
>
> There is a fundamental difference between saying "we work as
> individuals" and "we represent extra-IETF organization interests".
>
> If it is a problem it needs to be fixed, not only in the NomCom,
> but everywhere.

  It is a problem in the noncom, and has been for some time.  And
yes it needs to be fixed in the noncom and elsewhere.

>
>
> And...
>
> how does limit to 2 from the same organization get around the
> senior - junior issue? Shouldn't it be just 1?

  Why does there need to be such a designation Sr. and Jr.?

>
>
> How do you define "organization" - are 2 members from FOO Forum
> from the same organization? are 5? What happens if one of the
> members of the NomCom changes job during the period, there by
> creating a group of 3 from FOO Inc? Are 2 people from a single
> European country a problem? Are 6 from the US?

  Good point here...  No would be my answer...

>
>
> Note - I'm not arguing that this is not something that should be
> fixed. I'm asking for arguments that it is the right thing to do.
> And would like to see something more than the hand waving I've seen
> so far.
> Are there proof that people from the same organization has acted in
> a way that has been harmful to the IETF, more than people representing
> different organizations?

  As Robert correctly pointed out most if not all of what the Noncom
does is behind closed doors, hence proving one argument or another
difficult if not impossible or at least not probable.

>
>
> I'm all for diversification - if you try to run the argument that we
> want participation NomCom from as many organizations and background
> as possible because this is a good thing I would be far more
> receptive.

  Good!  Yes we should want participation in the NonCom from
 as many organizations and background as possible because
it is a good thing...

>
>
> /Loa
>
> Robert Elz wrote:
>
> >     Date:        Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:22:06 +0200
> >     From:        Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
> >     Message-ID:  <3D8ACC9E.6060300@utfors.se>
> >
> >   | the normal response to this is "we don't do companies, people
> >   | act as individuals". While I realize that that the "company aspect"
> >   | could be important in this context and needs to be fixed, it could
> >   | have an impact in other contexts as well. If it is fixed here, we
> >   | need to "fix it" elsewhere, or clearly motivate why it is a problem
> >   | here and only here.
> >
> > That one is easy to see.   In (essentially) all other IETF activities,
> > all is done in the open.   If people who happen to come from the same
> > organisation start acting in concert to achieve a result (a practice
> > not totally unheard of, though fortunately not all that common) then
> > it usually becomes quite obvious, quite quickly, and everyone else can
> > take that into account - that they're acting together doesn't make their
> > point invalid, but it does raise some suspicions, so we can be just that
> > bit more careful.
> >
> > The nomcom doesn't work like that, all its activities (or all that
> > matter) are done behind closed doors.   There's no way the community
> > can tell who is doing what - and whatever we eventually decide the
> > role of the liaisons is, I certainly can't see that it should be to
> > report back to the bodies they're from (or the rest of the community)
> > on who is voting which way inside the nomcom.
> >
> > Even if we assume that everyone acts in entirely the best interests of
> > the IETF, and we currently have no reason to assume that anything
> > different is happening, it can be very difficult for members of the
> > same organisation where one might happen to be senior, and the others
> > much more junior, and perhaps not completely willing to oppose their
> > senior colleague (and note: I know none of the people concerned this
> > time, and have no idea what their internal dynamics might be).
> >
> > So, I agree with Brian, this is one that we should be fixing.   A limit
> > of 2 nomcom members from one organisation seems like it should do no
> > harm - the random selection of members from the pool of volunteers can
> > just go on generating more numbers, with any that were picked, but come
> > from the same organisation as 2 earlier selections being ignored.
> >
> > Obviously, this to apply to the next nomcom selected, not this one.
> >
> > kre
> >
> >
>
> --
>      Loa Andersson
>      Chief Architect,
>      Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
>      Utfors AB
>      Råsundavägen 12
>      Box 525, 169 29 Solna
>      Office          +46 8 5270 2000
>      Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
>      Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
>      Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
>      WWW             www.utfors.se
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208