Re: [Iasa20] IASA 2.0 outcome properties

["Livingood, Jason" <[e-mail]>]

Randy – I think you make 2 good points below. The nomcom process is a key differentiator, and we don’t have company-designated representatives as in some other SDOs (nor voting or weighted voting by membership contribution). And the arms-length separation of financial support from the standards process is also a differentiator.

On 4/19/17, 10:07 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Randy Bush" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> imiho, there are two major factors keeping the ietf from becoming just
    another hidebound sdo.
    
>  one is the nomcom process instead of a popularity election process.
    while not perfect (what is?), we actually have a somewhat fair method of
    selecting for merit and quality.  though, in an organization run by paid
    bureaucrats, the quality of the ostensible leadership maybe be less of
    an issue.
    
> the second is being arm's length from money, HR, ...  yes, we need to
    have oversight and authority; but the level of indirection through the
    secretariat, rfc, isoc, ... keeps us out of some very serious mud.  some
    of these, namely the relationship with the isoc, we need to manage
    better.  i think the ietf's relationships to the rfc process and the
    secretariat show that we can do this quite well; we just have to apply
    it.