>>>>> "John" == John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> The whole idea here, I thought, was to set up a support
John> structure which would just work -- so that it could be
John> "invisible" to the IESG and never need to be discussed by
John> that group. (The problem, I thought, was that shortcomings
John> of the current Secretariat were entirely too visible; and
John> the IESG was spinning its wheels discussing them.)
No, the secretariat function will and should not be invisible to the
IETF. The IESG and IAB are likely to be in the best position to set
priorities for the clerk function. The IESG is probably the body that
would make a decision if people felt that a particular meeting
location did not meet our openness requirements. The IESG is involved
in approving a lot of scheduling requests.
However the IESG and IAB are only one of the customers of the
administrative function. Today if the IESG asks for something
there's not a good way to know if the request is reasonable nor how it
is prioritized. Understandably, Foretec's priorities are not quite the
same as the IETF's priorities. They are a for-profit corporation
accountable to their shareholders. To the extent that they do what
the IETF wants, it is because they choose to do so. factors like good
will, demonstrating to other potential customers that they do a good
job and just wanting to be helpful are probably all important.
One goal of the IASA is to bring this accountability into the IETF.
The IASA needs to balance priorities coming in from the IAB and IESG
against other needs and against available money. The IESG is
expected to continue discussing secretariat functions although we hope
the spinning the wheels (to the extent that it does happen--I don't
know yet how much that is)will stop.
>>>> And, as I said, the issue I'm raising is a key management and
>>>> management-relationships principle. Whether one agrees with
>>>> it or not, characterizing it as a corner case seems to me
>>>> like a stretch.
John> Let's review what John Klensin asked for: " " * the IETF
John> has got to keep its hands off the day-to-day " decisions,
John> even when they seem wrong " "
I don't strictly disagree with this although I'd prefer something less
restrictive. The structure should reasonably represent the costs of
reviewing decisions so that decisions are not reviewed more frequently
than is appropriate. Some may argue that this goal is difficult to
achieve and that simply never reviewing day-to-day decisions is a
better approach.
John> * the IESG and IAB need to be
John> prohibited structurally " from micromanaging, or managing at
John> all, beyond the " degree that the IAOC wants to permit.
John> They supply " input, they make requests, but decisions rest
John> on the " IAOC side of the wall and stay there, with the only
John> " _real_ recourse being to fire the IAOC
It all depends on what you mean here by managing. The BCP explicitly
calls out the IESG and IAB as important customers of the IASA--or did
at one point. If you are a services organization you certainly should
not be invisible to your important customers. It also seems like at
least in practice your important customers will be able to create
significant pressure to meet their priorities or to explain why this
cannot be done in the money available.
On paper, though, I agree that the decision rests with the IASA.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf