ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

2011-09-21 10:28:28
Dear Jari;

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jari Arkko 
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:

Bob,


 Goggle translate was helpful here :-)


Good... and next time when we meet over beer I can reveal the correct
translation :-)


I fear it might be "too much information."




 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.


This all sounds good. But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an
issue?


The Chairs think that is it, which is enough evidence for me.


Because I thought Jonne was saying that it is an issue and the solutions
should come from a better organization within the IAOC rather than from
Olaf's proposal. But if I read the above, it almost sounds like you think
everything is done pretty much as well as it can be done, and there's little
to change. Up-leveling the discussion: I guess we need to agree about the
problem statement before we can talk about the solutions.


Here is the problem as I see it. It is all well and good to say that the
IAOC should be more oversight and less administrative, but there is 5 years
of running code to the contrary. (I seem to remember a certain IETF Chair
predicting the withering away of the IAOC's workload as soon as the CNRI
transition was worked through.) I frankly just don't see that changing with
the IETF structured the way it is, and I do not see a fundamental
reorganization coming soon. In addition, the work of the IAOC (and Trust) is
greatly improved by the input of the Chairs. Yes, they represent bodies with
multiple members, but while each member may have equal status, they do not
all have equal interest in operational matters. (I know, for example, that
some ADs are not that interested in hotel contracts.) Plus, a lot of that
benefit comes from immersion in the issues and (to be blunt) immersion is
motivated by responsibility.

So, how to reduce the load on the Chairs ? This in my opinion a governance
issue, and, as it happens, we have some 5000 years of governance experience
to draw from. This problem is very common in governments (or companies) as
they grow - positions that formerly took one person become impossible for
one person to do. The typical way to deal with that is to grant
responsibility to another person or persons, in other words, to delegate the
responsibility. That was more the approach of the first draft of this I-D,
and so I like that part of it better. My chief reaction to the first draft
was that it wasn't followed through. It created basically new positions, but
had little to make sure that their holders would have the knowledge,
responsibility and authority for the job.

So, to be specific, here is a proposal. Create a second Area Director in the
General Area. Have this second AD be primarily responsible for operational
matters, and be the IESG ex-officio member of the IAOC / Trustee of the
Trust. This could be a new person, or the IESG could have a tradition that
an outgoing AD from another area serve in the post. (The IETF Chair should
be able to offload more responsibilities than just IAOC meetings to this
person, but that is an IESG / IETF Chair matter.)

The IAB is not so usefully subdivided, but it could likewise create a
vice-chair, which it could call something different. The point is that, if
the Chair is not going to undertake the role, there should be someone who
agrees that, not only will they serve on some committee, but also that they
will take responsibility for that service with their sponsoring
organization. I don't think that just having a new IAB or IESG nominated
member, by itself, is going to accomplish that.

Regards
Marshall



Jari



______________________________**_________________
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