This is a somewhat personal note, expanding on something I hinted
at in plenary in Minneapolis.
The person appointed as IETF Chair actually gets three jobs today:
IETF Chair
IESG Chair
General Area Director
The IETF Chair is clearly responsible to the IETF as a whole.
A fairly large amount of this role is, under BCP 101, in the
process of being handed over to the IASA and the IAD in particular.
But there remains a major role of listening to the IETF, trying
to form consensus on IETF-wide issues, and trying to carry that
consensus forward into action.
The IESG Chair is of course responsible to the IETF too, but
the role is different: the IESG Chair must form IESG consensus, drive
the standards process, and respresent IESG decisions collegially.
The General AD has the usual AD responsibilities, but with
the peculiarity that General Area documents tend to be ones that change
the IETF process itself - potentially including the above two roles
and the IESG's role.
If you put yourself hypothetically in those three roles, you will easily
see that there is potential for role conflict, especially if the community
wants A and the IESG wants B.
This isn't a complaint - but I think, in view of some of the
recent list discussions, that people need to understand very
clearly that this potential role conflict is built into our present
way of doing things.
Speaking personally, I believe that in the end, the community wins;
but when I speak for the IESG, you can expect me to represent the
collegial view of the IESG. When the community reaches a clear view
on something, which is frankly much harder to judge, I'll represent
that.
Brian-Three-Hats
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf