Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I've generally stayed out of this discussion, but let me offer a word of support to Bob, et al re maintaining some flexibility. There are two very strong protections already in place in this system. First, the operation of the IAOC -- and IASA -- are fully documented and visible. If the IAOC does something inappropriate, it will become visible and everyone will learn from it. Second, bills get paid through ISOC's normal processes. ISOC has a set of controls in place to document expenses and make sure they follow the expected set of rules. In addition to these strong protections, a questionable expenditure, even if it's several thousand dollars, isn't going to go irreparable harm to the IETF or ISOC. Trying to prescribe a strict set of rules in addition to these protections is counterproductive and may remove flexibility that's needed for the benefit of the IETF at some future time.

The IETF's success, and, indeed, the success of the whole Internet, has come from maximum flexibility and minimum a priori rules and permissions. We can easily afford to wait for the IAOC to screw up in some egregious fashion before we have to draft and administer rules to prevent subsequent abuses. In the meantime, let the IAOC do its job on behalf of the community.

Steve

Full disclosure: I was on the committee that formulated the IAOC and I served on the IAOC for a period of time.


On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


On Sep 13, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Several interesting responses, thanks.

I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended to cover.

On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules.

Dave said:

There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed.

OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the "under exceptional circumstances" and "with agreement of the IAOC chair or the IAOC"), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting "with prior agreement",

I am not sure that the prior agreement is a good idea. What may trigger this is something like

IAOC member shows up for IAOC event at X, finds that the room reservation (or breakfast or projector or ...) has been canceled (or is for the wrong date or ...) and that this problem can be fixed if they put down a payment immediately. Most of the rest of the IAOC is in transit, and prior agreement in terms of a vote cannot possibly be obtained until it may be too late. The missing item in the normal course of events would be paid for out of the IASA budget.

If I were to be placed in that situation, I would go ahead, put the money down, and hope to be reimbursed, prior authorization or no.


and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed by requiring "annual reporting of expenses paid".


I have no problem with that. As a suggestion, let's leave the text alone, and add

Any reimbursement of expenses to IAOC members for IAOC expenses will be reported in the minutes and in the annual reports by the IAOC Chair.

(Such reports are required, and have been given in plenary.)

Marshall


Marshall


Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]