Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 4/19/2011 12:53 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> [Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:] >> >>> 1. ISOC, IAB and IESG each appoint one person currently. Change this >>> to be two each, the same as Nomcom. Each year, they would appoint >>> one person. >>> >>> 2. Move the I* Chairs to be non-voting ex-officio participants, the >>> same as the IETF Administrative Director. They are welcome to >>> participate or be explicitly invited to all IAOC/Trust activities. >>> >>> This produces the continuity that is needed for the admin work, but >>> also retains access to the expertise of the I* chairs.
I always respect Dave's suggestions. (Of course, I don't always agree with them... ;^) >> I don't agree. Appointing two people (or more?) doesn't solve the >> problem I am concerned about, it still doesn't bring the chairs >> perspective. I usually respect Bob's suggestions, but I don't always understand them. (In particular, he's lost me here.) >> It also significantly changes the governance model by changing the >> balance between between nomcom, iab, iesg, and ISOC appointed members. The change in "balance" seems rather minimal -- but that could certainly be fine-tuned. >> Also, adding six people (still counting the chairs) will make the >> IAOC much larger and unwieldy. That I understand. Perhaps we shouldn't be adding any... However, Russ & Olaf seem to think there's work they have been expected to do. How will that work get done? Is the proposal first floated simply telling them the work is their responsibility -- and they need to find volunteers to do it? Us hoi-polloi aren't getting these details! > For clarification: > > 1. The IAB, IESG and ISOC each put two voting people onto the IAOC/Trust > today. My proposal preserves that. > > 2. The intent behind moving the I* Chairs to non-voting status, like the > IAD, is to ensure that they can continue to participate but remove from > the the requirement for daily IAOC/Trust activities. The presumption is > that they dive in for the big stuff, of the sort you cited, but do not > have the burden of regular participation. I have a slightly different view: that the IAOC is entitled to try to entice them into participation, but they would have the right to say "No". > For emphasis: > > As SM notes, my starting point is two of these folk saying they have to > have a change. Looking at the list of their duties, no one should be > surprised that they feel (and are) overloaded. So, they looked over > their current duties and decided this is the one they'd like to change. > I don't have -- and haven't heard anyone else suggest -- that some other > change in their duties would be more appropriate. So I see the relevant > question as how to make a change, not whether. I agree. Hopefully most of us can agree. Charging them to find someone to do the work feels wrong to me. Moving them to non-voting status feels right. Enabling them to participate in areas they feel critical feels right. Adding other individuals with voting status seems reasonable, but not-exactly-right. Perhaps the most important change would be simply not counting them for purposes of quorum... -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
