--On Thursday, September 22, 2011 00:12 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
Also, there is some experience from the other direction:
sometimes it has happened that the chair talks with the IAOC
and they come up with some conclusion, but when he talks to
the rest of us in an IESG meeting we bring up additional
points that may change the conclusion. So whether or not it is
the chair that is in the IAOC meeting, it is important that
there is a discussion with the rest of the body.
Yes. And while "how much" will differ with the individuals
involved and the dynamics of the IAOC, the claims that the
Chairs someone have exclusive knowledge, exclusive perspective,
and/or exclusive understanding are essentially arguments that
the kind of consultation Jari describes is really unnecessary.
I, for one, believe that have IESG and IAB insight (and input)
into what is going on in the IAOC/Trust is at least as important
as having IAOC/Trust insight into what is going on in the IESG
and IAB. And I believe that an appointed member --who might be
the Chair but need not be-- is actually likely to help
facilitate that two-way communication by making it more clear
that the IAB and IESG are expected to maintain some visibility
and insight.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf