This is a somewhat personal note, expanding on something I hinted at in plenary in Minneapolis. The person appointed as IETF Chair actually gets three jobs today: IETF Chair IESG Chair General Area Director The IETF Chair is clearly responsible to the IETF as a whole. A fairly large amount of this role is, under BCP 101, in the process of being handed over to the IASA and the IAD in particular. But there remains a major role of listening to the IETF, trying to form consensus on IETF-wide issues, and trying to carry that consensus forward into action. The IESG Chair is of course responsible to the IETF too, but the role is different: the IESG Chair must form IESG consensus, drive the standards process, and respresent IESG decisions collegially. The General AD has the usual AD responsibilities, but with the peculiarity that General Area documents tend to be ones that change the IETF process itself - potentially including the above two roles and the IESG's role. If you put yourself hypothetically in those three roles, you will easily see that there is potential for role conflict, especially if the community wants A and the IESG wants B. This isn't a complaint - but I think, in view of some of the recent list discussions, that people need to understand very clearly that this potential role conflict is built into our present way of doing things. Speaking personally, I believe that in the end, the community wins; but when I speak for the IESG, you can expect me to represent the collegial view of the IESG. When the community reaches a clear view on something, which is frankly much harder to judge, I'll represent that. Brian-Three-Hats _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf