Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

Thanks Bob,

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter!

> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
> >
> > Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to 
> > 1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective bodies.
> > 2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide (unsolicited) 
> > advice.
>
> There were many comments on your earlier draft and I don't see how these 
> changes resolve all of issues raised.  The new draft is different, but I 
> think the main issues remain.  Could you show how the issues raised are 
> solved by the current draft?
>
> For example, there seemed to me to be a rough consensus in the discussion on 
> the earlier draft that the IETF Chair should not be included in the proposal. 
>  Why did you not remove the IETF chair from the proposal?

I did not see that rough consensus, but let us not argue that, I believe it is 
up for Jari to say were the consensus is.

To the substance of that point: there is an argument to be made that if the 
IETF Chair has full voting power than the IAB chair should so to. I believe 
that it is beneficial for the organization if there is some symmetry there. 

For completeness, and in relation to that symmetry argument.  Jari wrote in 
another mail:
> And if the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why aren't they voting 
> members in IAB and IESG?
The IETF Chair is voting (full) member of the IAB (see section 1.1 of RFC 2850)
The IAB Chair is ex-officio member of the IESG (see RFC3710 section 2) but for 
Decision making the IAB chair is excluded from the consensus process (RFC3710 
section 3.1 2nd paragraph). The obvious reason for that is that the IAB is in 
the appeal chain.


> > I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of keeping a 
> > coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to steer outcomes if 
> > needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day involvement that is required from 
> > a diligent voting member.
> As I said earlier, I continue to think this is a bad idea.  We now have a 
> system that works well.  Certainly not perfect, but I am concerned your 
> proposed changes will make it work worse.
At some point I'd be perfectly happy to agree to disagree on the merit of the 
idea. But I want to understand the motivation and make sure there is nothing 
actionable on my side.

> In my time as IAOC chair, 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, 
> host, and other people attend.  I don't think an I* chair has been involved 
> at this level.  Also, the IAOC has several subcommittees (e.g., meetings, 
> budget, specific RFPs, and Tools).  I* chair attendance in these varies.  The 
> IETF chair is very active in the RFP subcommittee and Tools.  The ISOC chair 
> has reduced her attendance in the subcommittees.
There is no requirement that members of committees are IAOC members, is there?


> I think the I* chairs bring a broad view of the community and operational 
> needs based on what's involved in doing their jobs than other appointees 
> would not have.  In order for the I* chairs to be effective, they will need 
> to be involved.  If they are involved, then they might as well be voting 
> members.  
>
> With the changes you propose we could end up with an IAOC that none of the I* 
> chairs participate.  As you point out, they are all busy and will have a hard 
> time to following the issues if their involvement is optional.  This will 
> result in an IAOC that is disconnected from the community.  
I do not buy that argument. If the I* chairs are vital for the connect with the 
community we have a different problem.

It is important for the I* chairs to be connected with the community.
It is important for the IAOC to be connected with the community.
It is important for the I* chairs to be informed about what is happening in the 
IAOC
It is important for the IAOC to be informed about what the I* chairs find 
important.


> I think it's very important for the I* chairs to share the responsibility for 
> IAOC decisions by being voting members.  
Why?

> Same for the IETF Trust, your proposal would result in the I* chairs not 
> being members of the IETF Trust (unless the Trust was changed, another issue 
> in itself).  
>
> The current structure with the I* chairs being voting members of the IAOC has 
> worked well.  The I* members are involved in the important decisions, share 
> the responsibility for the decisions, and keep the IAOC/IASA connected to the 
> community.  
>
> I am sympathetic to the issue this draft is attempting to resolve, but I 
> think there are better ways to reduce the load we put on the I* chairs, than 
> what this draft proposes.

It would help if you would share those ideas. 

--Olaf

________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf