On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > I theory I can agree, but in practice I think the more separation there is > the more likelihood for organizational problems. The point I am trying to > make is that there needs to be close coordination between the IESG/IAB/ISOC > and having a responsible person (currently the chairs, there are other > possibilities as outlined in some other emails, XO model, etc.) taking voting > responsibility is the best way to implement that. It won't happen if it's > just another person the, for example, the IESG appoints as your proposal > sugests. Likewise, I don't think having the chairs be non-voting members > will work because the chairs are too busy for this to work over time.
I do not yet see how the other proposal, which is about diluting responsibility over more person, will keep the persons that end up being chair better informed. But that is because I have not seen the details. Remember that my proposal started out with allowing the chairs to delegate. In a way the alternative proposals may be subject to the same critique. I am also not 100% sure that close coordination between the IESG/IAB/ISOC means that the chairs need to participate in each others meeting. It might be much more effective if they have a meeting among each other to exchange high-level information and 'heads-ups'. --Olaf (keeps listening) ________________________________________________________ Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
