Hi Jari,
On 9/19/11 9:36 PM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.ar...@piuha.net> wrote: >Jonne, > >First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta! >Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä >polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä >mistään, 'kele!) Too bad the English version was not as graphic. Mun mielestäni tämä homma on menossa väärään suuntaan ja ihan reisille. Pitää funtsia, mitä ollaan korjaamassa, jottei heitetä lapsia pesuveden mukana. I wish people good luck trying to use machine translate all this.. > >Anyway, I like your description of the issue and it helps me understand >the concerns. That being said, I could probably construct a similar >argument for all of the bodies that an IETF chair, for instance, has to >attend. Are we really saying that under all circumstances, the chairs >have to attend everything that IAOC deals with? And be voting members? >And if that is too much then the entire IAOC has to delegate more of its >work? Really? And if the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why >aren't they voting members in IAB and IESG? > >I have some trust in the chairs ability to prioritize, delegate and >engage in the important discussions. Jari, it is a bit difficult to say what other groups (outside their own) the I* chairs have to attend. However, I don't think I said people have to go to every single meeting or be active in everything that IAOC decides to do. Already when I was in the IAOC, the work was organized (at least partly) into committees. Not everybody was active in every committee. So, you don't have to be involved in everything in the IAOC. In addition, you make it sound like we would have made people be active in the IAOC at gun point. Those instances were few and far apart! Actually, already then some things were being delegated. For instance, we had Greg Kapfer (CFO of ISOC) in the finance committee representing (in a sense of the word) ISOC. I want to be very clear: Sometimes it is just fine to delegate work. I think this is a completely internal matter for the IAOC to think how they organize themselves as long as the things get done. I actually think they should delegate more of the operational work! However, I don't think it is appropriate to delegate responsibility. Moving the chairs and the CEO/President of ISOC to a non-voting position is just that. > >I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It >should really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an >outsider, it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any >case, if you and Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to >take, can you comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be >tried? (And shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?) Just answering one of your questions above, but I just wanted to tie it to this thing here as well. You asked if the whole IAOC has to re-prioritize if the chairs are overwhelmed. I think your question is wrong. Theoretically, the IAOC should concentrate on doing decisions on the direction of the administration of the IETF. This means approving the budget, approving meetings, etc. There are few decisions to be made for the IETF, but those decisions are extremely important. However, there are multiple reasons why the IAOC is still very involved in the details. Partly this is also because the community expects them to be on top of many details with little importance - even on the frequency and the size of the cookie service during an IETF meetings. There are other reasons as well, of course. Cheers, Jonne. > >Jari > >On 19.09.2011 15:35, jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com wrote: >> Hi Olaf, >> >> I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings >> about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game. >> >> A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but >>I >> haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that. >> Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't >>necessarily >> have the up-to-date information of today, anymore. >> >> Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a >>lot >> of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I >>think >> it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other >> ways. >> >> However, I think the solution is a bit "menemistä perse edellä puuhun" >>(== >> putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ >>body >> that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically >>IAOC >> is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management, >> asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, >>you >> have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the >> president and CEO of ISOC). >> >> The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - >>the >> biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the >>fruits >> of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that >>the >> community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders >> (the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the >> trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership >> of the trust - you just cannot delegate that. >> >> Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for >>people >> who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be >> managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the >> IETF financials, assents, and other important activities. >> >> Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the >> operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This >>might >> mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to >> make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational >> stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and >> doing the oversight. >> >> If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload >> problem is a problem only the IAOC can fix, and cannot be done by >> reorganizing the IAOC. >> >> Sorry for the long e-mai. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jonne. >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
