On 10/21/2013 2:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We mustn't forget that although ADs almost always attempt to steer
(or manage) by persuasion and reasoning, they do have two or three
ultimate weapons - the powers to replace WG chairs, to close WGs,
and to decline to advance a document. This is what makes it hard
to split 1) from 2), and makes it plausible to separate 3) from
1)+2), IMHO.
Offlist, Joel reminded me of these points, which do formally qualify as
attributes of 'managers'. Still I think we should stop using terms like
manager and director, because they invoke the wrong organizational tone,
which I believe counters the underlying nature of the IETF.
That is, terms like manager or director invoke a model of daily
hierarchical authority that does not match IETF reality. Worse, it
encourages ADs to think of themselves as having and being authorities,
rather than facilitators.
Area Directors actually do not 'direct' the work in the area. They
almost never initiate it. They almost never define it. They almost
never directly contribute to its substance. Rather, they facilitate
grass-root processes to integrate it into the IETF and monitor its
progress.
The "management" functions that are classic are hiring and firing
chairs, refining charters, and prodding chairs to make wg progress.
That's all real, and one can cite them to justify the terms.
But this fact misses the day-to-day reality of the IETF which is a bunch
of grass-roots volunteers who combine to solve a problem that they, the
grass roots folk, want solved.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net