Dear Spencer; On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins <spen...@wonderhamster.org > wrote:
> For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of the > justification for Olaf's proposal. > > Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions > less of a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing. > > I could be in the rough on whether this specific proposal is the right > thing to do, but I'd feel better about rejecting it if the people who > insisted that the IAOC and IETF Trust responsibilities could not be > delegated, could make a counteroffer on how the overall workload for these > positions could be reduced in a way that IS acceptable. > > There are two broad issues with delegation as I see it : - New Trust "members" have to be full Trustees, with a fiduciary responsibility to protect the Trust's (and the IETF's) assets. In other words, these new Trustees represent their appointing body, but they are not mere liaisons from it. This is very clear for the Trust, and I would argue it should also be the case for the IAOC. This is just a detail, but an important one. - If the IAOC or the Trust requires knowledge of IESG or IAB plans, intentions, thinking, etc.. the new member / Trustee will not have the knowledge of the corresponding I* Chair. This will lower the efficiency of the IAOC and Trust, almost proportionally to the time saved. (If the I* chair is in every meeting, then there is no loss of efficiency but also no savings of time.) If the loss of efficiency is bad enough, this may not be sustainable. I, for one, would be willing to try the experiment (assuming I am returned to the IAOC / Trust and that the details are all worked out) and see how it goes. Regards Marshall > It would be helpful if we could organize to reduce the time commitment for > these roles. If not these responsibilities, what? > > Tugging at the various corners of a full-size fitted sheet on a queen-sized > bed doesn't actually result in completely covering the mattress - it only > wears out the sheet! > > Spencer > > p.s. in the interests of full disclosure, I am mentioned in the > acknowledgements section of the draft John mentioned in his post, along with > Joel Halpern, but I had completely forgotten about that until I saw my name > :-) > > > Have been alot of discussion and suggestion and problems but >>> nothing that made me understand why, what is the underlaying >>> cause. (it could be that I'm just slow, we shouldn't rule that >>> out :-) ) >>> >> >> Roger, >> >> The problem is that, over time, the IAB and IETF Chair positions >> have become full time (or more) jobs. Not only does that >> require a huge time commitment, but the roles require a broader >> range of skills and interests than are typically present in >> members of the IETF community. That situation, in turn, has >> several nasty effects. As three examples: >> >> -- If there are conflicting priorities and demands on time, >> something is going to get less attention than it deserves. The >> right people to decide what is most important in a particular >> case are the IAB and IESG, not a six-year-old document that >> doesn't allow for individual cases. >> >> -- Unless we have started believing in kings --even kings who, >> once elected, serve more or less as long as they are willing >> before stepping down-- the IETF Chair should not be lots more >> important, nor should we assume he or she is inherently more >> skilled in any given matter, than a consensus conclusion of the >> IESG. The IAB Chair should be even less so. These people are >> given roles of leadership and responsibility, not someone >> anointed with infinite wisdom and time -- or even absolute >> knowledge of what is good for the IETF and the Internet -- at >> the time they assume those positions. >> >> -- The pool of plausible candidates for the positions is >> significantly reduced because, especially in difficult economic >> times, there aren't very many people who can find sufficient >> support for a long-term (nominally two years but four or more in >> practice) full time commitment plus a large expense account for >> a lot of travel, etc. Unless we want to be in a situation in >> which candidates for those positions are selected almost >> entirely on the basis of who has the resources, we had better be >> looking for ways to reduce the scope of the positions. >> >> While I think Olaf's current proposal is better in several ways >> --including the provision that enables the Chairs to participate >> as ex-officio members when they think it is appropriate, if you >> are interested in a more lengthy discussion of "basic cause", >> there is a more extended discussion of the issues (and largely >> the same core proposal) in the now-rather-old >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/**draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.**txt<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt> >> >> john >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf> >> >> > ______________________________**_________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf> >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
