On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/14/2011 9:51 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
My concern is that this proposed change would likely make the IAOC work
worse. That is, I think it would have a negative impact on the operations
the IETF and that is why I am concerned.
That is a concrete and basic assertion. Please put some flesh on its bones
so that the basis for your view can be understood better.
Let me take a run at this.
Back in the pre-history of BCP 101 we had very little control over many of
the administrative functions that support the actual work of the IETF. We
had a single long term relationship with an organization that run the
meetings and collected fees "on behalf" of the the IETF and performed many
of the secretariat functions. Over time, this relationship had frayed
considerably (on both sides) and the community become increasingly
restive, looking for more autonomy and a better understanding of our own
internal business processes.
There were a number of drivers for the (extended) discussions about
process and one of these was overload on the volunteers in the leadership
roles. Among the solutions crafted up were the creation of the IASA and
the hiring of our first paid employee (IAD). We also ended our
relationship with the existing secretariat and moved to a process of
contracting for services through the IAD with over site from what became
the IAOC. The termination of our relationship with CNRI then spawned the
creation of the IETF Trust. All of this took an enormous amount of
community time and energy and a lot of tough questions had to be asked and
answered. I'll just highlight a couple:
- an all volunteer organization hired it's first paid employee.
note that this can be a slippery and expensive slope and there
was always a risk that this might change the volunteer culture
- the IASA/IAOC/IETF Trust were tasked with stewardship for the
administrative health of the IETF.
- the Trust formalized the future disposition of IETF assets and
allowed an orderly transition from claims from previous administrations.
My belief at the time was that the primary concerns in all of this were a
desire for greater transparency and organizational autonomy. There was a
clear demand from many that the IETF "own" it's own processes.
The implication is that the people sitting in the positions of IAB Chair and
IETF Chair are essential to the good operation of the IAOC/Trust. Someone
else from their groups or even someone else that they appoint from outside
cannot perform the task of IAOC/Trust member adequately.
I think this is the wrong question. I don't think this is about the
people who sit on the IAOC or the Trust, it is about the roles. Their
participation is part of the chain of accountability to the community.
The IAOC was crafted to include both the IAB and IETF Chairs as well
as the ISOC CEO in their respective roles and not as Fred, Harold, and
Lynn (as members of the IETF community).
What are the specific contributions (insights and skills) that these roles
regularly perform, in the conduct of the IAOC/Trust that cannot be performed
adequately by others?
One more point here: as a former Chair of the IAOC (IAB appointed
member from the community) I'm sympathetic the the overload arguments
but I'll note that absent the IAB/IETF chairs the work of the IAOC
chair and the weight put on that role may increase in unexpected ways.
I agree with many of the points that Bob, Brian, Leslie, and Jari
have made in earlier posts and think that we need to take a broader
view of the problems we're trying to solve here. Role overload is
an on-going problem but I'm not sure we solve this by moving the
administrative accountability we gained through BCP 101 to additional
ps. Reminder: I've just joined the IAOC/Trust, which means I've attended a
few meetings and seen some operation. As always, my comments have nothing to
do with the individuals; this is about organizational design.
Ietf mailing list