On 9/19/2011 8:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions less of
a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I think it
accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so far.
The problem is with how absolute your language is. It declares one criterion as
entirely dominating all others.
What is needed is to consider this issue in terms of tradeoffs. So far, the
thread hasn't, except a bit dismissively.
The issue that Bob has raised about the special capabilities of I* folk within
IAOC discussions is not minor. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a bit subtle.
For example, it took me awhile to understand. (We can count that as a weak
proof...) Equally, how it gets applied is subtle.
It seems to be important spontaneously. So, for example, a view that the I*
will "get involved" in discussions where their perspectives are needed is based
on an inaccurate model of how and when those perspectives come into play. It
presumes the ability to plan for the need. But what really happens is that most
IAOC discussions need to wander over a broad range of issue and sometimes when
they do, they trigger a connection in an I* member due to their perspective.
Such triggers cannot be planned.
I don't know how to resolve this with a high level of certainty and safety. So
I made a guess.
The proposal that Olaf has put forward is one attempt, by way of keeping I*
Chairs involved, but relying on them less to attend every discussion and carry
all the detail.
Whether that's produces a sufficient balance is an open question.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf