Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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. You're saying it's not service, but you're asking for technical oversight - that's service. > 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. Agreed; that part is non-technical service, but we seem to spend a lot of time on process - notably where process procedures don't take the disconnect between the meritocracy view and the service view in account. > It's the part that requires > technical breadth and depth, sound judgement, people skills and, er, > leadership. Except for the technical part, that's required of all participants - paid or not. >> 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... I don't see anything that encourages that, let alone requires it. >>> 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. We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward, but we need a way forward or we'll just keep coming up with (poor) excuses for the status-quo. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf