It seems to me that the *primary* responsibility for ensuring that
the WG considers everything it should consider, at an early enough
stage, lies with the WG Chair(s).
Certainly, the AD has an oversight and mentoring role here,
especially for first-time WG Chairs, but your obvious question
should be directed first to the WG Chair(s) and only second to
the ADs.
Brian,
We are talking about the IESG. So that is what is being commented on.
We can always expand or redirect the scope of the discussion, with the
predictable effect that it takes the focus off changes in IESG
responsibilities and activities. But that won't be productive.
For example, I could easily respond that the *primary* responsibility for
ensuring that the wg considers everything it should consider lies with wg
members. Going down that path would ensure that we never really discuss
anything about the IESG. However I would rather look for productive changes
that can be made in IETF management practises, since it is quite clear that
SOME changes are needed and we have already spent some years NOT making them...
So, let's stay with the focus of this thread, shall we?
"Certainly, the AD has an oversight and mentoring role here?" captures the
issue quite nicely. It is an AD's trade-off between the role as individual
technical contributor and the role of working group facilitator that I was
highlighting.
My point is that the AD's primary responsibility is to focus on that oversight
and mentoring.
d/
ps. I would argue, therefore, that Steve Bellovin's posting about carefully
contributing to the AAA working group on the problems of proxies was, in fact,
exactly this sort of strategic management mentoring. Yes, he viewed it as
technical contribution because, of course, it was. However he talked about the
carefulness required in pursuing it and, of course, the strategic reasons
proxies are a bad idea. THAT is oversight and mentoring.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf