On 4/16/2011 7:51 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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
I do not see anything in the extended history you provide that explains Bob's
assertion of what is needed now.
Perhaps I missed it. If so, please point to the specific requirements that
Better still, let's let Bob explain his own assertion of the requirement.
(It's of course fine for you to explain your own view, but Bob is the current
chair of the IAOC and speaks from a different, current vantage point than anyone
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.
That's what I was referring to. No idea how my text appears to say otherwise.
However "roles" do not perform. People occupying those roles do.
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?
That's unfortunately circular and ambiguous reference. What text specifically
provide the answer to this question?
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.
This is another assertion without providing substance. My original note asked
for the substance so that the discussion can include more than expert assertions
of agreement or disagreement.
Folks need to note some rather basic points:
1. Things are working fine, except that they aren't.
This entire thread comes from a proposal from folk who are overloaded and
who need things to change.
When someone says "I cannot keep doing the task I've been assigned" either they
are not competent to the task or the nature or terms of task need to change. I
don't see any basis for considering the former, which leaves us with the latter.
By any reasonable measure, the IETF has concentrated far too much work onto its
two Chairs. For an organization devoted to an industry based on distributed
control, we have a remarkable dislike to distributing control within the
organization. One effect of this is to dramatically reduce the pool of people
available for those concentrated jobs. Here we have a request for a particular
reduction. If that reduction is not tolerable, we need to understand why?
Separately, of course, we need to consider the details of the change and
consider tradeoffs for alternative solutions. To do that, we need to understand
the requirements that are at issue. Hence my questions to Bob.
2. The view that no change should occur without a "holistic" review is a
consistently effective way to kill any change effort. We have plenty of
experience with its effectiveness.
Note that the most effective enhancements to successful IETF work is by
incremental change, not "holistic" re-evaluation.
Here we have a proposal from those experiencing the problem. A proposal states
the problem and offers a solution.
My original question to Bob was to help us assess the assertion of the problem
and the assertion of the solution. (One or another notes implies that I've
stated an opinion about the proposal, but I haven't. For now, I'm trying to get
source data, including performance requirements and the logic behind the
Ietf mailing list