Hi, Is this the correct list for discussing draft-klensin-iaoc-member? > o workload and full-time positions > Even without IAOC and Trustee roles, the IETF Chair and IAB Chair > roles require considerable time and effort. This has been true for many years of the IETF Chair role. Indeed one of the main motivations for creating the IAOC and IAD roles was to tackle this. From personal experience, as the IETF Chair who bridged the changeover, there is no doubt in my mind that this changed the IETF Chair job from essentially impossible to reasonably possible. So it was a success in this respect. If anyone's interested in how I thought about the workload at that time, see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks The question I have (as I did when writing that draft) is whether any further organisational change would have a *significant* effect on the IETF Chair workload. More on that below. My feeling is that the IAB Chair role has grown in recent times, and not in the sense of being able to spend more time on Internet Architecture. That seems like a Bad Thing. To some extent this is a short term effect due to the need to reorganise the RFC Editor service, which is a clear IAB non-architecture responsibility. However, it generates the same question about organisational change. > In addition, it is useful to clarify the role of the IAB and IESG > representatives by making them (and the chairs, if different) non- > voting liaisons. That statement doesn't seem to be justified by anything above. Why is it useful, and what is unclear about their present (voting) roles? I'm missing a few steps in the argument. > ... This reduces the requirement that IAB and/or IESG > members be selected for the specific types of expertise needed on the > IAOC and Trustees. NomCom has major difficulty in this anyway. We need IAOC members with good technical and community understanding *and* the IAOC/Trustee skills. This seems essentially unfixable to me. Also, it isn't discussed in the draft that by removing two voting members, the IAOC quorum becomes quite a bit smaller and the concentration of power perhaps too great. Wouldn't we want to add at least one regular member, which would make the NomCom task even harder? > o If one or both of the liaisons specified immediately above are not > the IAB Chair or IETF Chair, those individuals have permanent > liaison status with the IAOC (and Trustees): they are not expected > to attend meetings on a regular basis, but may do so and may not > be excluded from any meeting, even executive sessions. Two points on this: 1. One possible effect of this is to add two people to every IAOC or Trust meeting. That doesn't seem like workload reduction. 2. In any case, it seems to me to be unrealistic to imagine that an IETF Chair would drop out of IAOC participation; in fact I would regard it as downright irresponsible to do so. Being non-voting would perhaps reduce formal responsibility, or even legal liability, but the IETF Chair should still read everything and debate everything. So I think the workload reduction is illusory. The IAB Chair might be able to step back from some matters, but not when the IAB's oversight areas (IANA and RFC Editor) are concerned. Bottom line: I don't see this change as producing a significant net gain, unless there are arguments that I've missed. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf