Re: [ga] nomination procedures

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 07:39 AM 11/16/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote (with respect to proposals
that the GA, instead of sending to the NC *all* names with the support of
10 endorsers, adopt a procedure under which it sends over only the X names
with the most support):

>On the other side, what practical benefit do we gain by being
>restrictive? I don't see any.  From my perspective it just seems like
>further sustenance for the "we vs them" engram...

	It would be desirable, I think, for the GA chair to have strong support in
the GA.  A problem with the "send over everybody with 10 endorsers"
approach, it seems to me, is that it doesn't meet that criterion:  It's
relatively easy for a person to get the minimum number of endorsers without
regard to the breadth or depth of his support in the GA as a whole.  The
advantage of the "send over the X names with the most support" approach is
that everyone on the list will have a somewhat stronger level of support
within the GA.  (The level of support gets weaker, although the likelihood
that the NC will approve the procedure gets stronger, as X increases.)

	John Klensin, for whom I have great respect, urges that we simply can't
get it together at this point to have voting, given the potential noise as
to which list members are not actual people, have forfeited the right to
participate, etc.  I'm disturbed too as to the state of the GA.  But I
think that we may see much of the same noise even with a "send over
everybody with N endorsers" approach.  And if the NC is willing to approve
a procedure under which it can select a chair only from the X names with
the most support within the GA, I think it's worth it for us to try to find
those X names, rather than simply letting the disrupters prevail.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com