On 08/12/2014 10:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Dec 8, 2014, at 12:22 AM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
So it should be possible to reach agreement on text changes that
would take this tone out of your reading.
I actually do not think that it should be published at all, as
I don't think it solves any problem that the IETF is currently
experiencing and I tend to think that it might lead to further
ossification of the organization. That is to say, I think
that the cost/benefit balance does not work out in favor of
publication.
i agree. i will not add a bunch of sarcastic analogies about
more bureaucratic bumph we just don't need.
i also agree with your suspicion that this is an attept to patch
a chairing problem. one suspects possible iesg unwillingness to
bite bullets.
I agree. The list of tasks assigned in this draft to the secretary should be
done by the w.g. chairs. If they can't do these tasks, then they shouldn't be
chairs.
OLD:
Section 3
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07#section-3> has
listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG
Secretaries.
NEW:
Section 3
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07#section-3> has
listed the functions and responsibilities of WG Chairs.
If not, what's left for the chairs? Just a title?
Exactly like having 3 WG chairs leads to dilution of responsibility, I fear
that that same dilution of responsibility will apply here. At least with the
way it's specified in this document, i.e, like a formal role.
Maybe it boils down to the fact that I have not seen a successful secretary in
action.
+1 to no publishing this document.
Regards, Benoit
Bob