Dear Spencer;
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins
<spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org
wrote:
For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of the
justification for Olaf's proposal.
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.
I could be in the rough on whether this specific proposal is the right
thing to do, but I'd feel better about rejecting it if the people who
insisted that the IAOC and IETF Trust responsibilities could not be
delegated, could make a counteroffer on how the overall workload for these
positions could be reduced in a way that IS acceptable.
There are two broad issues with delegation as I see it :
- New Trust "members" have to be full Trustees, with a fiduciary
responsibility to protect the Trust's (and the IETF's) assets. In other
words, these new Trustees represent their appointing body, but they are not
mere liaisons from it. This is very clear for the Trust, and I would argue
it should also be the case for the IAOC. This is just a detail, but an
important one.
- If the IAOC or the Trust requires knowledge of IESG or IAB plans,
intentions, thinking, etc.. the new member / Trustee will not have the
knowledge of the corresponding I* Chair. This will lower the efficiency of
the IAOC and Trust, almost proportionally to the time saved. (If the I*
chair is in every meeting, then there is no loss of efficiency but also no
savings of time.) If the loss of efficiency is bad enough, this may not be
sustainable.
I, for one, would be willing to try the experiment (assuming I am returned
to the IAOC / Trust and that the details are all worked out) and see how it
goes.
Regards
Marshall
It would be helpful if we could organize to reduce the time commitment for
these roles. If not these responsibilities, what?
Tugging at the various corners of a full-size fitted sheet on a queen-sized
bed doesn't actually result in completely covering the mattress - it only
wears out the sheet!
Spencer
p.s. in the interests of full disclosure, I am mentioned in the
acknowledgements section of the draft John mentioned in his post, along with
Joel Halpern, but I had completely forgotten about that until I saw my name
:-)
Have been alot of discussion and suggestion and problems but
nothing that made me understand why, what is the underlaying
cause. (it could be that I'm just slow, we shouldn't rule that
out :-) )
Roger,
The problem is that, over time, the IAB and IETF Chair positions
have become full time (or more) jobs. Not only does that
require a huge time commitment, but the roles require a broader
range of skills and interests than are typically present in
members of the IETF community. That situation, in turn, has
several nasty effects. As three examples:
-- If there are conflicting priorities and demands on time,
something is going to get less attention than it deserves. The
right people to decide what is most important in a particular
case are the IAB and IESG, not a six-year-old document that
doesn't allow for individual cases.
-- Unless we have started believing in kings --even kings who,
once elected, serve more or less as long as they are willing
before stepping down-- the IETF Chair should not be lots more
important, nor should we assume he or she is inherently more
skilled in any given matter, than a consensus conclusion of the
IESG. The IAB Chair should be even less so. These people are
given roles of leadership and responsibility, not someone
anointed with infinite wisdom and time -- or even absolute
knowledge of what is good for the IETF and the Internet -- at
the time they assume those positions.
-- The pool of plausible candidates for the positions is
significantly reduced because, especially in difficult economic
times, there aren't very many people who can find sufficient
support for a long-term (nominally two years but four or more in
practice) full time commitment plus a large expense account for
a lot of travel, etc. Unless we want to be in a situation in
which candidates for those positions are selected almost
entirely on the basis of who has the resources, we had better be
looking for ways to reduce the scope of the positions.
While I think Olaf's current proposal is better in several ways
--including the provision that enables the Chairs to participate
as ex-officio members when they think it is appropriate, if you
are interested in a more lengthy discussion of "basic cause",
there is a more extended discussion of the issues (and largely
the same core proposal) in the now-rather-old
http://tools.ietf.org/id/**draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.**txt<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt>
john
______________________________**_________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>
______________________________**_________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf