There is an obvious question that at least for me drives the answer to
whther the IAD is the IETF Executive Director.
As currently practiced / defined, is the IETF Executive Director a full
Scott Bradner could probably answer more definitively, but I believe
our process documents and other RFCs refer to a role, not a job. Basically,
there are a few times in which you need to "contact the IETF" and
the words "IETF Executive Director" means "the full time staff shall ..."
and "go find the person who has that title." (Barbara Fuller, as the
lead person on the Foretec IETF Secretariat is our current Executive Director.)
It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest exercise
has been to move overall management responsibility for IETF admin. and
support activities (IASA) from contractors to a "program manager",
which is what this BCP is all about. As such, it seems that where
documents refer to "IETF Executive Director" that should become
(via a paragraph in this BCP) a pointer to the IAD or other appropriate
position as further pointed to by the IAD.
If it is a full time job, then clearly it should not be combined with the
IAD. THis implies that we will need budgeting to contract / hire this
person in addition to the IAD.
So far, the contracting philosophy has been "one and only one" person
as a full-timer. Everything else is a contract. If we're going to
go 1++ (or designate a contractor as a named position), that probably
needs to be worked out. My personal feeling: don't tie the hands
of your iaoc/iad until they can start looking at contracts and how
they might/should be let.
Unless explicitly delegated with the consent of the IAOC, the IAD
will also fill the role of the IETF Executive Director, as described
in various IETF process BCPs.
My own opinion (ymmv) is leave the text as is and strike the editorial
Ietf mailing list