John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 19 June, 2006 10:49 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I'd be interested to know if anyone has comments on
draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00.txt:
This document describes tasks performed by the IETF Chair,
the IESG
Chair, and the Area Director of the General Area of the
IETF. Its
purpose is to inform the community of what these tasks
are, and to
allow the community to consider whether combining all
these roles in
one person is optimal.
In particular, with the new NomCom cycle starting soon,
does anyone believe we should discuss the last point?
Brian,
I don't know if this is just my idiosyncrasies or if others
might agree, but let me try to explain why I haven't responded
to this note and won't do so before Montreal.
I have discovered, reluctantly, that there are only a finite
number of hours in a given week,
This is a point on which the draft and its author are in violent
agreement with you :-)
<snip>
As far as this one is concerned, I have read it a couple of
times. Parts of your model of the roles and how they might
plausibly be divided are inconsistent with my perceptions.
Understood, but as far as what tasks the I* Chair performs today
(and has done for at least the last few years), the draft is description,
not opinion. Of course, the way tasks are assigned to the differing
roles is a matter of judgement and opinion.
My
sense is that some of the issues could be addressed in radically
different ways, ones that might actually work better and, along
some dimensions, require fewer changes.
That doesn't mean you are wrong. It means that the topics need,
IMO, further discussion and presentation and exploration of
alternatives.
That is certainly true.
<snip>
If the IETF Chair position were up for review by this coming
Nomcom,
It is. I started my term in March 2005. Time flies.
I think I'd take your notes as part of a suggestion to
the Nomcom that they solicit from potential candidates, not an
ever-longer questionnaire, but an essay that specifically
addresses these issues, possibly with the intention of compiling
the results and getting them to the community and IESG as part
of the decision process.
I certainly have it in mind to draw NomCom's attention to the draft.
It's up to them what use they choose to make of it.
I could elaborate on that idea if
anyone cared, but I presume we have a year before it is in the
critical path.
(Un)fortunately not.
Perhaps I should suggest what I would suggest if a participant
in the community who was not IETF Chair or on the IESG floated a
document like this on an individual basis: Announce a beer BOF
schedule for Montreal. Offer, if necessary, to buy the first
round or a beer for anyone who makes a constructive suggestion.
And then see if, with appropriate lubrication, you get some good
input or if anyone cares about the subject matter more than the
beer itself.
I'm not completely convinced that beer is the appropriate choice
in Montreal, but I would definitely welcome informal discussion,
because I believe the community does need to face these issues.
I fully appreciate your comments (that I have snipped out) about
excessive process related discussions, but we need to ensure
that future NomComs have viable choices.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf