--On Friday, 26 November, 2004 16:40 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
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.
Sam,
While I understand and sympathize with the concern you raise,
the whole model so far --as developed much more by the IESG and
IAB than by the community, so it presumably meets their needs --
is that we constitute an IASA and IAOC, and then let them run
the details. If the IESG asserts the right to start appointing
(and presumably firing) particular individuals, especially
individuals who, under the current model, are contractors, we
are down the slippery slope toward a level of IESG management of
the administrative process that calls for a completely different
model.
It seems to me that it might be reasonable to expect the IAD to
seek the advice, and maybe the consent, of the IESG on an Exec
Dir appointment. But going much further than that requires a
rather different model.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf