On 8/19/14, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Sunday, August 10, 2014 19:37 -0800 Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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).
All organisations or departments have secrataries positions. I think
it is very important position even if its tasks are small but are
important which it has no much responsibility on secretary but on the
chair because he/she should always take all the admin-tasks
responsibility.
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.
Firing chairs is the AD responsibility not the community. We are not
in that situation, if an AD is in that situation, then he/she can add
chair or secretary to help in small activities (depends on the reasons
of situation), however, our ADs are perfect in that and I see no
problem at ADs management so far (not sure of your example is it real
or imaginary for future).
Agree strongly but let me turn the above around:
While informal guidance is probably always a good idea (as long
as getting it together doesn't suck energy out of useful
technical work), the secretary role needs formal definition and
procedures only if it is really a Junior Chair. If we don't
want Junior Chairs (and I agree with Melinda and the draft that
we don't), then the job description is best kept as informal and
flexible as possible.
I never seen secretary positions as informal/hidden in successful
organisation. IETF may have many informal groups or teams but I think
that should stop and we need more formal and not hidden positions so
we can progress in management activities. All successful managers need
assistance of secretaries. I recommend even ADs need help of
secretaries, why not :-).
In particular, WG Secretary roles have been used in the past for
leadership development.
That is one benefit, but not the most important advantage, IMHO, WGs
need assistance with that position.
Doing that well requires a lot of
flexibility. Creating an explicit Apprentice Chair role (even
if named something else) would probably undesirable for several
reasons but a document that restricts the ability for Chair(s)
to assign some of their responsibilities to a Secretary who
works under reasonably close supervision would impede that
possibility and, if the document were a BCP, make it subject to
appeal.
We don't create a new chair role, but only a normal secretary role (it
is known what is secretary roles in successful organisations, they are
about very small tasks without powers and all
monitored/approved/signed by manager/chair). Chair roles have powers
that cannot be delegated only to co-chair or AD. There can be no
appeal for the secretary role because secretaries have no power on WG,
that is similar in any organisation/departments/office in the world.
AB