Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 4/19/2011 12:53 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
[Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:]
1. ISOC, IAB and IESG each appoint one person currently. Change this
to be two each, the same as Nomcom. Each year, they would appoint
one person.
2. Move the I* Chairs to be non-voting ex-officio participants, the
same as the IETF Administrative Director. They are welcome to
participate or be explicitly invited to all IAOC/Trust activities.
This produces the continuity that is needed for the admin work, but
also retains access to the expertise of the I* chairs.
I always respect Dave's suggestions. (Of course, I don't always agree
with them... ;^)
I don't agree. Appointing two people (or more?) doesn't solve the
problem I am concerned about, it still doesn't bring the chairs
perspective.
I usually respect Bob's suggestions, but I don't always understand
them. (In particular, he's lost me here.)
It also significantly changes the governance model by changing the
balance between between nomcom, iab, iesg, and ISOC appointed members.
The change in "balance" seems rather minimal -- but that could
certainly be fine-tuned.
Also, adding six people (still counting the chairs) will make the
IAOC much larger and unwieldy.
That I understand. Perhaps we shouldn't be adding any...
However, Russ & Olaf seem to think there's work they have been
expected to do. How will that work get done? Is the proposal first
floated simply telling them the work is their responsibility -- and
they need to find volunteers to do it?
Us hoi-polloi aren't getting these details!
For clarification:
1. The IAB, IESG and ISOC each put two voting people onto the IAOC/Trust
today. My proposal preserves that.
2. The intent behind moving the I* Chairs to non-voting status, like the
IAD, is to ensure that they can continue to participate but remove from
the the requirement for daily IAOC/Trust activities. The presumption is
that they dive in for the big stuff, of the sort you cited, but do not
have the burden of regular participation.
I have a slightly different view: that the IAOC is entitled to try to
entice them into participation, but they would have the right to say "No".
For emphasis:
As SM notes, my starting point is two of these folk saying they have to
have a change. Looking at the list of their duties, no one should be
surprised that they feel (and are) overloaded. So, they looked over
their current duties and decided this is the one they'd like to change.
I don't have -- and haven't heard anyone else suggest -- that some other
change in their duties would be more appropriate. So I see the relevant
question as how to make a change, not whether.
I agree. Hopefully most of us can agree.
Charging them to find someone to do the work feels wrong to me.
Moving them to non-voting status feels right.
Enabling them to participate in areas they feel critical feels right.
Adding other individuals with voting status seems reasonable, but
not-exactly-right.
Perhaps the most important change would be simply not counting them
for purposes of quorum...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf