ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

2007-06-27 06:20:53


Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe,

On 2007-06-24 18:19, Joe Touch wrote:

Ted Hardie wrote:
...
That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a meritocracy; it's
not.

I believe there remains a disconnect between what people think the I*
roles are (primarily service, e.g., IMO), 

That may be your opinion. Mine is that the part which is pure service
is exactly the part we should pay to get done, via contracts and SLAs
with IASA.

You're saying it's not service, but you're asking for technical
oversight - that's service.

If we had more money, I could certainly envisage paying for
a full-time Standards Process Manager, to actively manage document
and milestone processing. The part we expect from community members
placed in leadership positions is not that. 

Agreed; that part is non-technical service, but we seem to spend a lot
of time on process - notably where process procedures don't take the
disconnect between the meritocracy view and the service view in account.

It's the part that requires
technical breadth and depth, sound judgement, people skills and, er,
leadership.

Except for the technical part, that's required of all participants -
paid or not.

and what those in those roles
have sometimes interpreted it as (oversight based on meritocracy).

Maybe, but Nomcom isn't supposed to re-appoint those...

I don't see anything that encourages that, let alone requires it.

The IESG and IAB are picked by NomComs for a variety of skills and
"fit" is a critical one. 

Indeed. The primary metric of "fit" means:

    - is willing, available, and *financially* able to serve

Until we remove that last metric - where roles can take upwards of 80%
of someone's time, where letters of support from employers are
requested, if not required, we select from among an increasingly small
and increasingly biased (towards industry participants) subset.

Unfortunately I can't see any practical way to change this unless
we decide that instead of 120 WGs we should have, say, 50. I did
tentatively propose splitting the Chair role, but people didn't
bite on that, and it wouldn't solve the load problem for the IESG
as a whole.

We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the
per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward,
but we need a way forward or we'll just keep coming up with (poor)
excuses for the status-quo.

Joe


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>