Hi Brian
On 2/16/2016 2:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm trying to avoid repeating myself, so I won't comment on everything.
On 17/02/2016 06:13, Michael StJohns wrote:
<snip>
(Basically, when I looked at this I assumed that the three organizations -
IESG, IAB and ISOC - should have similar treatments
unless there was a good reason not to.
To the contrary, I think there are four organizations involved (IETF, IESG, IAB
and ISOC)
that have very distinctive roles, and there is no reason to look for symmetry.
I believe you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Look at it
from the IAOC side instead - what are the IAOC benefits/reasons for each
of these to a) be on the IAOC, and b) have a vote? The fact that the
organizations have somewhat different missions doesn't really change
that analysis much.
There may be a reason from the IAOC's point of view to require the ISOC
president in the
ISOC slot, but then again there may not - I'd like to hear from them on this
point.
Well, I don't think that it's really the IAOC's call.
It's not their call, but the level of participation in the IAOC of any
given organization is certainly an IAOC concern. Jari has good
commentary on why the IAOC may occasionally want to send the CFO vs the
CEO or a random board member and I think that's a useful set of
comments. But there are actually two different things going on: who
gets the vote and who gets a voice. The IAOC may believe it's for the
best that the CEO continue to be the voting member (for whatever reasons
- that's why I asked), or may be happy as long as there is one single
identified voting member fairly up in the ISOC hierarchy. I would
believe that the IAOC would be unhappy if the voting member were a third
or fourth level employee of the ISOC or a BOT member randomly selected.
So yes, it's is somewhat the IAOC's call, and I think that applies to
all organizationally tied members of the IAOC.
If not, then giving the ISOC BOT the
ability to pick their representative seems a useful tweak to the current rules).
It isn't the ISOC BOT. It's the ISOC acting as an employer and funding agency.
So
I agree with John on this: the ISOC President/CEO is the right person.
(Aren't you arguing against yourself? Above you said that the IAOC
doesn't get to pick, but here you're mandating that they pick the ISOC
President.)
I don't disagree with this - but I also don't unconditionally agree with
it either. Certainly having the President (or event the CFO) involved
in discussions and agreements with the IAOC/IETF Trust is important on a
topic to topic basis, but can they give the IAOC the time commitment the
IAOC needs for business other than that directly touching the ISOC? If
yes, then leave the voting position there. If not, find another ISOC
related member to represent the ISOC, and move the vote there.
I should also clarify that I'm not proposing actually splitting the job of IESG
Chair from that of IETF Chair. I'm simply observing that they are two very
different
roles, and speaking for the IESG on admin matters is different from speaking
for the IETF as a whole on admin or policy matters.
Didn't think you were - but I read John's comment as him thinking you were.
Regards
Brian
Later, Mike