Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility

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

 



A couple of observations from my personal viewpoint.

I tend to agree with others that we need to think about this in a top-down fashion, i.e. start from what is the problem that we intend to solve. I do have a serious concern about the workload for the people involved, particularly the chairs. But I wanted to make a couple of additional points.

First, I would not necessarily take it for granted that we have an infinite supply of people for various tasks. Finding an IESG member with enough time on their hands to participate the IAOC is not a given. We could of course always choose from outside the IESG, but again, most of the IETF participants are not here for administrative work, so while many can do it, I'm guessing some arm twisting would be required.

Second, even if you do find one, its not given that it provides the kind of connection between the chair and the IAOC that we want. Olaf pointed out that its bidirectional information transfer. Only a very small part of the IESG work is actually talking about IAOC matters, so I'm guessing that even if the delegate is another AD, the chair would still have to arrange extra time with this other AD in order to ensure that information transfer happens.

Third, I forget if it was Bob who noted that if we are strained by the tasks that we are doing, perhaps its time to outsource a bigger part of it to paid employees or businesses. For instance, I'm kind of hoping that 99% of the meeting selection load is on the IAD and the secretariat, not on the IAOC members. The members should set the policy, adjust the policy, and monitor implementation. If you are meeting every two weeks and deciding details then maybe you are on the wrong track. It should be the board, not the work horse.

Fourth, I think we are bringing on some of the load by our own actions. We have increased the number of entities that need to have a board and increased the amount of coordination needed. For instance, the RFC Editor was at one time one person, and today I'm honestly not sure I know how many entities it consists of. Of course, we needed much of this restructuring as the IETF has grown and has changed its operational mode also in other ways. But we should also watch it and avoid creating unnecessary structure where none is needed. I'm a little bit scared that adding a layer of delegation may cause the collective us to have more meetings, not less.

I also had a couple of thoughts on possible alternative directions to reducing the problem. Outsourcing more is one approach. Another one is to not have more people from the IESG and IAB attend the IAOC, but have people from the IAOC bring more information to these bodies. For instance, in the IESG we always have an "IAB report" but we don't normally have a Trust or IAOC report. Should we? A third direction is separating the role of the chairs as *working* members of the IAOC from their ability to attend and vote where needed. Would this detach the chairs too much? I don't know, but I think there might actually be less detaching than if you delegated your role away for a year. Russ, Olaf, how much do you normally participate the IAOC work? Are you in the subcommittees, do you work on details of agreements with our service providers?

Jari

_______________________________________________
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]