On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Bob, et al,
On 4/18/2011 2:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I didn't say no one else could do the job adequately. I said "would have a
negative impact" on the operations of the IETF.
Right. And my second sentence did go farther than I meant.
However rejecting an effort to change the current arrangement -- especially
when it is initiated by a principal -- means that alternatives are not
acceptable, which translates roughly to saying the alternatives will not
produce adequate performance. Otherwise it looks like a difference between
'adequate' and perhaps "perfect"?
We don't get perfect :-)
There is a core reality, here, that the I* Chairs are overburdened. This is
obvious from looking at the list of their duties and underscored by the
source of the current initiative. We can choose to defer doing anything,
under the guise of taking a 'holistic' view or we can try to help with the
specific burden that is the focus of the overburdened folk. On the average,
we do better with incremental change and this is the one before us now.
Then let's talk about the overall problem and not a point solution.
If I generalize this, I would say that the I* chairs have been actively
involved in the most significant decisions the IAOC makes, they tend to be
less active in many of the day to day operational issues.
I think the I* chairs, in my view bring a broad view of the community and
operational needs based on what's involved in doing their jobs than another
person would not have.
My own simplistic summary: For some topics it is extremely helpful to have
the broader knowledge and insight that can be provided by an I* chair. For
many topics, this is not needed, but for some it makes a significant
I agree, and it is representative of the level of current participation of I*
To that end, here's a very simple proposal that resolves the issue cleanly:
1. ISOC, IAB and IESG each appoint one person currently. Change this to
be two each, the same as Nomcom. Each year, they would appoint one person.
2. Move the I* Chairs to be non-voting ex-officio participants, the same
as the IETF Administrative Director. They are welcome to participate or be
explicitly invited to all IAOC/Trust activities.
This produces the continuity that is needed for the admin work, but also
retains access to the expertise of the I* chairs.
I don't agree. Appointing two people (or more?) doesn't solve the problem I am
concerned about, it still doesn't bring the chairs perspective. It also
significantly changes the governance model by changing the balance between
between nomcom, iab, iesg, and ISOC appointed members. Also, adding six people
(still counting the chairs) will make the IAOC much larger and unwieldy.
Ietf mailing list