![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On 9/15/08 3:11 PM, "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> This entire line of thinking gets scarier and scarier. If it has any validity
> as concern, then we already have a very deep problem. Candidacy often is
> already known among some of the IETF community, including among incumbents and
> other candidates. So the conflict of interest problem is already present...
> if your point is valid.
I think there's a problem, but I don't know how deep. The
thing that strikes about your message is that some people
already know, some people don't. I.e. there's an insider/
outsider division, and that tends (strongly!) to undermine
transparency.
I'm not crazy about announcing nominations because I
really don't like the idea of IETF electoral campaigns (egads),
but I do think there's a general problem of the organization
not having adapted to its current size and to the problems
that size brings. The fact that there's some guy running
around threatening litigation over all kinds of procedural
stuff shouldn't necessarily cause undue worry about lawsuits
but I do think that it should raise the question of what
a security considerations section for a document describing
IETF structure would look like. We're not all Alice and Bob
here anymore.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.