----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:38 PM
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Arturo Servin <arturo(_dot_)servin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then
leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced
a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure
Phill's
model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in
the sense
you seem to be thinking of. So why do we now need a 'leader'?
We have a collective leadership, which is quite a good system as long
as
it avoids groupthink, and I think the IETF community is talkative
enough
to reduce (not eliminate) that risk. But when we're invited to wider
inter-organisation meetings, we can't all go, and the ones who do go
are certain to be viewed as our leaders by the other organisations.
And that for me is the point. Regardless of how we view ourselves, it
is also a question of how others view us and, almost without exception,
organisations have leaders and will expect us to be the same. If we
want to be perceived as leaderless, we are going to have to work a lot
harder at promulgating that point of view; and even then, I expect we
would fail.
Tom Petch
Inevitably, it's the Chairs who get invited; up to them to delegate
if they want.
Brian