Trying to wrap the ExDir discussion:
The IETF process documents have been written with the assumption in a few
places that there exists an IETF Executive Director, and that IETF process
documents can assign tasks to that person.
The things that the process documents mention explicitly are far less than
a full time job; the job that the current Executive Director (Barbara) is
doing is clearly more than a full time job.
In the new model, there is no neat box marked "IETF Executive Director".
Part of what Barbara's doing goes to the IAD (primary interface with
IESG/IAB to figure out what requirements are), part go with the contractor
that does the "clerk" contract (managing the support staff), and part seems
to have no natural home.
I think that we should stick the BCP at the abstraction level (who makes
the decision), and not at the assignment level (who does the job). But I
think that the IESG is not the best body to assign those tasks (its role is
intended to be mostly technical, not administrative), and I think it's not
certain they all go to one place. So I would say:
The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG,
will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that
other IETF process documents say are carried out by the
IETF Executive Director.
Does that make sense to people?
--On 26. november 2004 13:43 -0500 scott bradner <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
Bert further asks:
The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function
as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF
Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx).
Does the IETF community can agree with that?
I agree that the IAD and the IETF ED are different functions and agree
with the new paragraph
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list