This is a quite understandable goal. But I am not sure that as stated it
can be met.
Let us assume that some of the activities that the IAD is responsible for
contracting includes the Executive Director function. (I have difficulty
seeing it as a separate contract on its own.)
It is the IAD's job to award that contract.
One would hope that the IESG had review over the person who they had to
work with that closely. But such review is VERY different from getting to
choose the person.
Just my reading of the documents,
Joel M. Halpern
At 04:40 PM 11/26/2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>> "Carl" == Carl Malamud <carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org> writes:
Carl> It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest
Carl> exercise has been to move overall management responsibility
Carl> for IETF admin. and support activities (IASA) from
Carl> contractors to a "program manager", which is what this BCP
Carl> is all about. As such, it seems that where documents refer
Carl> to "IETF Executive Director" that should become (via a
Carl> paragraph in this BCP) a pointer to the IAD or other
Carl> appropriate position as further pointed to by the IAD.
I think the IESG's concern here is that they, rather than the IAOC
would like to designate who the executive director is.
The executive director is very involved in making the IESG and process
functions run smoothly.
It seems like significant friction would be created if the executive
director was not someone the IESG was comfortable with.
Ietf mailing list