ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

2011-09-21 09:17:09
Jari,

A few comments on your email to Jonne.  

On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

Jonne,

First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta! 
Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä 
polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä mistään, 
'kele!) Too bad the English version was not as graphic.

Goggle translate was helpful here :-)



Anyway, I like your description of the issue and it helps me understand the 
concerns. That being said, I could probably construct a similar argument for 
all of the bodies that an IETF chair, for instance, has to attend. Are we 
really saying that under all circumstances, the chairs have to attend 
everything that IAOC deals with? And be voting members? And if that is too 
much then the entire IAOC has to delegate more of its work? Really? And if 
the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why aren't they voting members 
in IAB and IESG?

I have some trust in the chairs ability to prioritize, delegate and engage in 
the important discussions.

They do that today.


I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should 
really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, 
it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any case, if you and 
Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to take, can you 
comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be tried? (And 
shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?)

I am not sure what you mean by the members of the IAOC doing the actual work.  
The IAD does most of the work behind the scenes.  That includes writing RFPs, 
motions, budgets, SOWs, agendas, works with the volunteer minute takers to 
produce the minutes, organizes contractor reviews, negotiates with contractors, 
works with ISOC finance department, works with legal council, organizes 
conference calls and meetings, etc., etc.  The secretariat does the leg work to 
collect information on venues, costs, hotels, etc.  The IAOC voting members 
review, comment, approve/disapprove things, but that's not where most of the 
real work is.  The voting members are responsible for the decisions and 
actions.  I want to make it clear that most of the actual work is not done by 
the voting members.   Given the source of our members, we do tend to get 
involved in details for better or worse.  The IAOC (and Trust chairs) have a 
bigger load than the rest of the voting members.

Bob




Jari

On 19.09.2011 15:35, jonne(_dot_)soininen(_at_)renesasmobile(_dot_)com wrote:
Hi Olaf,

I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings
about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game.

A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I
haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that.
Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily
have the up-to-date information of today, anymore.

Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot
of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think
it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other
ways.

However, I think the solution is a bit "menemistä perse edellä puuhun" (==
putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body
that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC
is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management,
asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you
have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the
president and CEO of ISOC).

The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the
biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits
of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that the
community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders
(the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the
trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership
of the trust - you just cannot delegate that.

Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for people
who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be
managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the
IETF financials, assents, and other important activities.

Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the
operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This might
mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to
make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational
stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and
doing the oversight.

If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload
problem is a problem only the IAOC can fix, and cannot be done by
reorganizing the IAOC.

Sorry for the long e-mai.

Cheers,

Jonne.


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

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