David's comments

[Carl Malamud <[e-mail]>]

Vint -

I'm not sure that forwarding David Brandin's comments to the
entire POISED list was fair to either David or to those of
us who have been trying to hold together a fragile consensus.

The comments that David made are useful and are obviously
based on experience.  However, they are out of context and
are made without a real understanding of the situation.

The document that David reviewed was not meant to be a set
of by-laws.  Instead, the document posted on the POISED list
was simply a summary of the points of agreement that were
reached.  It is widely recognized that somebody (you? :)
needs to head an effort to put together a real set of by-laws,
a charter, and the other administrivia.

As to the substance of David's comments, I sympathize with his
cursory impressions, but it seems to me that perhaps the ACM
is not the ideal model to be emulating in this situation.
Instead, we should look at the IETF, IAB, and ISOC and try
to forge a system that best reflects our own political
realities.

For example, I agree that chairing of the nominations committee
should not, in ideal circumstances, be the province of a staff
member.  However, the degree of tension inside of our community
was *so* high over the last two months that Mike Roberts was
the only name/position/procedure we could find that wasn't a
point of contention.  Rather than dwell on a suboptimal procedure
for the head of the nominating committee, we moved on to the
next point.

I hope you'll agree that the important thing to do was break
the situation we found ourselves in where political tension was
so high that technical focus was suffering.  Holding that
compromise up for comparison to the highly elaborate procedures
of an immense bureaucracy like the ACM is really unfair.

Carl