On 8/10/14 6:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
The analogy to the Tao also suggests that the effort to compile
this document write things down, and get community review has
been worthwhile and constructive. What is less clear is
whether the result should be a BCP in the RFC Series or, like
the Tao, an evolving document.
Two things:
1) I do think that it makes sense to have something like
this in a wiki or informal document, both because I don't
see a lot of value in adding more formal layers to the IETF
organizational structure and because I do think a casual
document is going to be more responsive to changing
circumstances, and
2) I would object rather strenuously to this being published
as a BCP, anyway. I am unclear what problem it solves -
certainly, if there's an issue with underperforming chairs
that really needs to be dealt with head-on rather than delegating
to another individual (who may or may not perform). I continue
to think that if you're in a situation in which you feel you
cannot fire a chair, add another one rather than adding someone
who's neither fish nor fowl, not really a chair but kind of sort-
of one, anyway.
Wiki page describing the secretary role: yea. Publishing
a BCP further formalizing the secretary role: nay.
Melinda