On 2011-09-28 08:03, John C Klensin wrote:
<snip>
... 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 agree, and of course this goes with my bias against the IAB
becoming the I Administration B, which imnsho is a slippery
slope that we are already on.
I'd also like to see mechanisms explored within the IESG to
reduce the load on the IETF Chair.
I agree with this phrasing. If Russ isn't too busy (joke), an
update of draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks might be of interest,
especially
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00#section-5
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;
Indeed. In the above draft I also distinguished the IETF Chair
role from the IESG Chair role, and whether they can be split is
worth a discussion.
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...
And to be clear, I (still the previous IETF Chair) think that
some such change is needed, which is exactly why I wrote the
above draft in 2006. Perhaps the difference is that I see
the IAOC/Trust role as very hard to separate from the IETF Chair
role - but more easily separable from the IESG Chair role.
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).
I think we need all three to be equally efficient; before IASA
existed, we had burning administrative problems. I wouldn't
like to have to rank the importance of the three.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf