--On Monday, September 19, 2011 14:04 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<marshall(_dot_)eubanks(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
...
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.
Marshall, I agree that this is a detail. I agree that it is an
important one. However, I also note that the window during
which we could not make changes to the Trust agreement closed
some time ago. More important, if we get to the point at which
the Trust and/or IAOC tails have started to wag the IETF dog, we
are, IMO, in rather serious trouble... and certainly outside the
original intent for either 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.
FWIW, I don't think this follows. My earlier proposal required
the IAB and IESG appointees to be IAB and IESG members, just not
necessarily the Chairs. The current proposal creates that
option, but doesn't require it. Even if someone other than a
sitting IAB or IESG member is chosen, it would be entirely
reasonable for the IAB or IESG to choose a recently-departed
member, a scribe, or something else they have invited to sit in
on their meetings. In addition, while Russ was already a
sitting IESG member when selected as IETF Chair, that has not
been the historical norm: I haven't gone back and checked the
data, but I believe the majority of post-Kobe IETF Chairs have
not been IESG members when appointed. If so, for at least the
first few months after the first IETF of a calendar year, a
separate appointment might actually give the IAOC and Trust more
continuity and knowledge of IESG thinking than dropping a
brand-new Chair into the job.
While I think it would be reasonable to add a few paragraphs to
this proposal reminding the IESG, IAB, and ISOC how important
continuity of knowledge is, I think we can actually trust all
three of those bodies to figure that out and act sensibly. Do
you disagree?
I didn't mention it explicitly in my earlier note but I think we
should consider the possibility that this isn't just an "unload
the chairs" proposal. It is also a "improve the effectiveness
of the IAOC and Trust by having more people in voting seats who
have the time, interest, and ability to pay full attention...
perhaps more than the various Chairs have had.
...
best,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf