Joe,
On 2007-06-24 18:19, Joe Touch wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
...
That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a meritocracy; it's not.
I believe there remains a disconnect between what people think the I*
roles are (primarily service, e.g., IMO),
That may be your opinion. Mine is that the part which is pure service
is exactly the part we should pay to get done, via contracts and SLAs
with IASA. If we had more money, I could certainly envisage paying for
a full-time Standards Process Manager, to actively manage document
and milestone processing. The part we expect from community members
placed in leadership positions is not that. It's the part that requires
technical breadth and depth, sound judgement, people skills and, er,
leadership.
and what those in those roles
have sometimes interpreted it as (oversight based on meritocracy).
Maybe, but Nomcom isn't supposed to re-appoint those...
The IESG and IAB are picked by NomComs for a variety of skills and
"fit" is a critical one.
Indeed. The primary metric of "fit" means:
- is willing, available, and *financially* able to serve
Until we remove that last metric - where roles can take upwards of 80%
of someone's time, where letters of support from employers are
requested, if not required, we select from among an increasingly small
and increasingly biased (towards industry participants) subset.
Unfortunately I can't see any practical way to change this unless
we decide that instead of 120 WGs we should have, say, 50. I did
tentatively propose splitting the Chair role, but people didn't
bite on that, and it wouldn't solve the load problem for the IESG
as a whole.
Brian
Those selected to serve would serve us all better if they kept that in
mind more often.
Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf