Hi Yoav,
I just want the IESG to have a special hat. Any person in IETF is a
participant that edits, discusses, reviews and comments, including
managers, which I think is a good system model, but having to add
management and decision-making in the same time can create a problem
in that model. The AD has three authority-hats: one the normal
participation/part-of-community one we all have, the second is AD hat,
and the third is the IESG hat (I don't like to think titles only have
hats off-or-on, because I have a nice hat in IETF for participation).
I have no problem with WG Chair hats because they use two per document
and I prefer only two level influences on documents process.
On 10/20/13, Yoav Nir <ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi, AB
We don't have enough world-class experts on [insert subject here] that we
can delegate some of them to "administer but don't participate" roles, and
some others to "review but don't participate" roles. The same goes for WG
chairs - if the WG is facing a contentious issue, it doesn't make sense to
require the chair to shut up about it just to make the process more neutral.
I'm afraid we'll have to live with the with-hat/without-hat thing regardless
of any changes to the process of the job description.
The ADs have multiple functions:
- managing the working groups, scheduling
- reviewing all documents
- incubating new work - BoFs.
- representing the IETF, "steering", community stuff.
The last function is not reasoable because it is not related to the
Area needs including IETF best output and the function is related to
the IETF decisions. Why does the AD be part of that decision for his
area's documents, I think better to be separated because he can have
used the normal hat in WG and then AD hat, so only maximum two hats
used per document. IMHO, the current system is that one AD person can
be using three hats per document flow through the system.
These functions could be separated, but only at a cost of more people. And
nobody would take any of those jobs if it means they can't speak at
technical meetings.
I agree, but we have already majority people that don't like to take
those functions together (we are short of ADs) which I reduced one
function out. All SHOULD speak equaly in any meetings and I never say
that some one should not speak/comment. I want simply that who do IESG
to not do AD works, to reduce the three authority-hats of the AD to
only two hats.
My concerns are not three level-influences in only technical
discussions but also procedural discussions.
AB
with my IETF participation hat on