Jordi,
On 11/04/2017 06:27, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Once more, as I indicated in November last year. I fail to see ANY RFC that
confirms that the IAOC itself is empowered by the community to select more
committee members in a very obscure way, and as Leslie indicated based on
“personell decisions”. Clearly not transparent at all.
Why, if committees need more participants, which I understand because the
increase of the workload, and knowing already since several months ago that
this is a thread, and that the NomCom have candidates to participate.
We have got an opportunity to ask the NomCom to work on extra candidates
since some people was appointed already in November.
If there is no RFC allowing it, clearly this is a decision that MUST be
appealed, as it is totally against the IETF spirit.
I disagree, but let me explain why, because I agree that there's a
problem, just not the one that you state.
And I suggest that we follow up on the appropriate list for the point I'm
going to make (hence the way this message is addressed, with a Bcc to the
ietf list).
Firstly, we gave the administrative job to IASA some years ago. IASA, whose
head is the IAD, is IMHO completely entitled to do its job how it pleases,
for example by negotiating resources with ISOC or by calling for community
volunteers and organising them in committees.
Secondly, we created the IAOC to oversee IASA and the IAD. That's what
the "O" in IAOC stands for, and it was not a casual choice.
These two separate consensus decisions have got very mixed up since 2005.
The IAOC is evidently not just overseeing IASA - it's doing a large part of
the work of IASA itself. That's the problem that needs fixing - either by
changing the rules in RFC 4071 to describe reality, or by changing reality
to follow the rules.
Not everyone agrees with my analysis, but I think we have the IASA 2.0
discussion for a reason.
Brian