Mike,
On Sep 22, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I've been watching this with interest. I'm especially in agreement with
Leslie's comments about chair load.
Because of the legal issues with respect to the IETF trust and the
implementing documents for the IAOC, its going to be pretty difficult to come
up with a way to remove some of the responsibilities from the Chairs (meeting
attendance, voting, etc) without also removing the authority.
We're arguing somewhat in circles.
I agree with Bob's comments below that the leadership of the IESG and the IAB
need to be involved in the operation of the IAOC, but I no longer think there
are enough hours in the day for the IETF and IAB chairs to be able to do
everything they need to do.
I hesitate to suggest this, but its probably time:
Let's add a position to the IESG - Executive Vice-Chair or Co-Adjutor Chair.
Basically, either the chair's personal representative (Executive Vice-Chair)
or their replacement in waiting (Co-Adjutor Chair).
Have the IAB select a vice-chair when they select the chair.
Modify the various documents to describe the various responsibilities for the
Vice-chairs - suggestions for the IETF co-chair would be to stick him/her
with the IAOC, the Trust and at least half of the Administrivia.. For the
IAB - ditto plus liaison and appeals.
Modify the IAOC documents to permit either of the two co-chairs to be
designated for a year at a time as IAOC members by the respective chairs
choice (but can't be pulled off once on). No modificiations to the Trust
legal document, but probably modify the administrative document to require
the chair and co-chair for the IAB and IETF be invited to all non-closed
meetings.
Job description to the Nomcom - for the IETF, the co-chair is a
chair-in-training with the expectation they may make a decent Chair when and
if the time comes. Maybe rotate that job every two years regardless to
ensure a couple of people with some of the chair experience are in the pool.
Maybe even every year.
I think something like you propose would be better than what the current draft
proposes.
I think the three chair positions we are discussing are different and need
different solutions. For example:
ISOC CEO/President
This responsibility can't be delegated to just anyone. It needs to be an
officer of ISOC. For example the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Chief
Operating Officer (COO). It's very different from the board selecting another
IAOC member, there needs to be someone from ISOC who has fiduciary
responsibility in ISOC. While I don't think having the CFO or COO would be
good as having CEO, it would be workable.
IAB Chair
The IAB chair is selected by the IAB, it's not an nomcom selected position. As
you propose, if the IAB created another leadership position, maybe analogous to
an IAB COO that could work. It would have to be a leadership position in the
IAB with real responsibility, including being a voting member of the IAOC and
IETF Trust.
If the IAB doesn't want to do this, then the IAB should consider ways of
reducing it's load. It has taken on more responsibility in recent years. I
think some of that could be moved out of the IAB. For example, the IAB could
more fully delegate decision making to the RSOC and only deal with appeals.
IETF Chair
The IETF chair is chosen by the nomcom. The job requirements are clear in
advance. Anyone applying is aware of the job. I don't think the IETF Chair
position on the IAOC and IETF Trust can be delegated to anyone else without
serious risk to the overall IETF standards operation. The IETF chair needs to
be a voting IAOC and IETF Trust member. Too much of the IETF operation for
it's successful operation is tied to the IETF chair for he/she to delegate it
to anyone else. It's just part of the job.
I think we should look for other ways to reduce the load on IETF chair, like
giving up the general area (have a separate AD for that), or a more
comprehensive change to the IESG where more of the decisions are moved to
individual areas (e.g., add an other level to the IESG). The IESG is getting
large for a flat management structure.
Bob
Mike
At 10:27 AM 9/21/2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
I think it's very important for the I* chairs to share the responsibility
for IAOC decisions by being voting members.
Why?
So we don't have the IESG and IAB having disputes with the IAOC. Having the
IETF and IAB chairs share the decisions avoids a lot of this. I think you
are aware of a few times where we got close to this and I think the current
structure helped avoid it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf