Dave,
On 4/14/2011 9:51 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
My concern is that this proposed change would likely make the IAOC work
worse. That is, I think it would have a negative impact on the operations
of
the IETF and that is why I am concerned.
Bob,
That is a concrete and basic assertion. Please put some flesh on its bones
so that the basis for your view can be understood better.
The implication is that the people sitting in the positions of IAB Chair and
IETF Chair are essential to the good operation of the IAOC/Trust. Someone
else from their groups or even someone else that they appoint from outside
cannot perform the task of IAOC/Trust member adequately.
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.
Some examples where an I* chair had a significant influence on a decision that
IAOC made include:
- The hiring of the Transitional RSE
- Many of the Beijing meeting issues (prior and post signing the MOU)
- Specific venue selections (in one case avoiding a less than ideal venue)
- The need for transparency in certain IAOC actions (day passes, venue
rotation)
- Discussion of what policy decisions that the IAOC can make vs. the IESG vs.
community
- Discussion about when to get community feedback
- Secretariat contract (RFP, bidders review, selection, etc.)
- RFC Publisher and Publisher contracts (RFP, bidders review, selection, etc.)
Some of these decision might have been different without one or more I* chairs
being directly involved in the decision. Please review the minutes for more
detail.
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. For example, there are
weekly calls in the months before an IETF meeting that the host, NOC team, IAD,
and a few other people attend. I don't think an I* chair has every been
involved at this level.
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.
Why?
What are the specific contributions (insights and skills) that these roles
regularly perform, in the conduct of the IAOC/Trust that cannot be performed
adequately by others?
I think it because the role has the individual doing the job getting involved
in the many related activities that gives them more insight than someone else,
even a member of the same group. To cite an example, I was on the IAB in the
past, but I wouldn't claim to have the same total understanding of the IAB (and
the things the IAB is responsible for) as the IAB chair at the time. It's not
the skill per se, it's being involved in the all of the topics that the chair
is naturally involved in.
d/
ps. Reminder: I've just joined the IAOC/Trust, which means I've attended a
few meetings and seen some operation. As always, my comments have nothing to
do with the individuals; this is about organizational design.
My concern is as you say about the "organizational design", not the current set
of individuals. I want to make sure this keeps working well with the next set
of leaders and the set after that.
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf