On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, John C Klensin wrote:
<snip>
At the risk of agreeing violently with Dave, I think the series
of comments above, and referenced above, are missing something.
None of this familiy of "delegation" or "someone else" proposals
requires that the IAB or IESG Chairs not serve on the IAOC. If
they think that is sensible and they have the time, they are
free to do that. We might even strongly encourage it. However,
if those people conclude that limited available time is better
spent in other ways or that, if they take the IAOC position,
they would not be able to devote adequate attention to it,
aren't we better off giving them the flexibility and discretion
to make that decision? Similarly, if someone tells the
appointing body "I have the time and resources to take on the
IAB Chair or IETF Chair position but only if that position does
not include the responsibility of sitting on the IAOC" isn't it
better to give those bodies the option of considering that
person rather than limiting the choices to those who can sign up
for all of the job?
I'm not arguing that any of the IETF/IAB/etc hat wearers are
inexhaustible resources, I'm saying that the AdminRest process
looked hard at the composition and duties of the IAOC and if
the needs have changed, or the community concerns have shifted,
we should approach the current problems in a holistic manner and not
engineer short term solutions on the fly. I'll point you at your
own last paragraph here;
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33932.html
At least from my perspective, broadening the flexibility
available to already-appointed IAB and IETF Chairs and to the
bodies that appoint them is the real issue here. _Requiring_
that they serve on the IAOC does not create more time or
resources, it just limits the range of people who can take those
positions or, more likely, raises the odds of getting someone
onto the IAOC who won't be able to pay full (or even adequate)
attention.
certainly one possible outcome
So. in addition to the questions Dave posed, the question I
would address to you and Bob is whether, given a hypothetical
choice of someone sitting on the IAOC ex-officio but not being
able to really pay attention because he or she concludes that
there are more pressing priorities and having someone
representing the IAB or IESG who really can pay attention, which
one you would pick. In the worst case, if you prefer to have
the Chairs nominally present but not paying complete attention,
then keep insisting that they are the only ones who can possibly
occupy the IAOC slot.
I would of course prefer full attention and skilled participation.
I'd also like the full confidence of the community in the process.
As part of that, figure out how you are going to convince the
Nomcom and the IAB that selecting people for the Chair roles
should have "will give IAOC first priority regardless of their
judgment about the importance of other aspects of their roles"
as an absolute criterion and/or how you are going to convince
the community to recall anyone in the Chair roles who does not
give the IAOC that priority.
New/old problem that may require additional revision on several
fronts - not just the IAOC.
- Lucy
best,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf