ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

2011-09-27 14:05:15


--On Monday, September 26, 2011 13:15 -0700 Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

John,

I don't see how you took what I said and then interpreted it
as suggesting that I was saying proposing an "absolute
dictatorship".  You do have a good imagination :-)

I didn't take your proposal that way at all.  I was only trying
to point out that maximizing organization efficiency -- or
minimizing the risks of organizational problems-- may not be a
very good success criterion.

Also, I have been proposing some other ways of solving the I*
overload problems as you suggested, except that I don't think
the solution to the I* overload problem is in the IASA.  

There, we may just disagree.   I can't speak for anyone else,
but, if I have to make a decision about making one of the IESG,
IAB, or IASA a less efficient in the interest of reducing load
on critical and non-substitutable people, I'd be inclined to
point to the IASA first.  

FWIW, I don't think that having the IASA bear all of the burden
is right either -- I also want to look for changes that would
reduce the IAB-caused and IESG-related loads.  

For example, I favor both letting the IAB choose who represents
it on the IASA _and_ the Program model that implies, among other
things, that the IAB Chair doesn't have to have first-hold
involvement in everything.  Interesting it is exactly the
assumption that the IAB Chair will have first hand involvement
in everything that the IAB does that is cited an example of why
it is necessary to have the IAB Chair on the IASA.   So, if the
IAB succeeds in reducing the load on the IAB Chair in that way,
the argument for forcing the IAB Chair to serve on the IAOC and
Trust is reduced as well.   

I'd also like to see mechanisms explored within the IESG to
reduce the load on the IETF Chair.  To the extent to which being
General Area AD adds significant work, I'd be happy to see that
turned into a "real" area and handed off to someone else.  I'm
not even sure that it is critical that the IETF Chair take a
lead (and voting) technical role in the IESG; perhaps the
community should reevaluate the required skill set and determine
whether that responsibility (which, of course, includes
responsibility for document reviews, etc.) is really an optimal
use of time and skills or whether we should eliminate it and
look for a different balance of skills.  I'm not recommending
that -- I can see large disadvantages as well as advantages --
but I think it is within the range of options the community
should understand and consider.

If we (the community) are going to solve the I* overload
problem, it would be good to have some actual data on how the
I* chairs spend their time.  It would be good to have a better
understanding of the problem before proposing solutions.

Yes.  And a better understanding of how all sorts of people
spend their time, if it could actually be obtained, would be
helpful for all sorts of purposes (e.g,, I'm sure Nomcoms would
love to know for priority-setting purposes in candidate
selection)).  But, having sat in one of those seats and had an
up-close view of how several others have handled them, I think
one of the things you would find is that each person who does
those jobs sorts things out, and prioritizes them, a little bit
differently (maybe a lot differently).  From that perspective,
the observation that we've got the current IETF Chair and the
current and immediate past IAB Chairs, supporting this change
ought to send a relatively strong message... unless, again,
efficiency of the IASA is more important than efficiency of the
IAB or IESG (and I want to stress that I don't think you have
said that... if it just my inference about whether some of your
arguments lead if carried to their logical conclusion).

   john

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