Olaf, On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Based on the discussion I've updated the draft: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership > > Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to > 1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective bodies. > 2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide (unsolicited) advice. There were many comments on your earlier draft and I don't see how these changes resolve all of issues raised. The new draft is different, but I think the main issues remain. Could you show how the issues raised are solved by the current draft? For example, there seemed to me to be a rough consensus in the discussion on the earlier draft that the IETF Chair should not be included in the proposal. Why did you not remove the IETF chair from the proposal? > I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of keeping a coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to steer outcomes if needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day involvement that is required from a diligent voting member. As I said earlier, I continue to think this is a bad idea. We now have a system that works well. Certainly not perfect, but I am concerned your proposed changes will make it work worse. In my time as IAOC chair, the I* chairs have been actively involved in the most significant decisions the IAOC makes, they tend to be less active in many of the day to day operational issues. For example, there are weekly calls in the months before an IETF meeting that the host, NOC team, IAD, host, and other people attend. I don't think an I* chair has been involved at this level. Also, the IAOC has several subcommittees (e.g., meetings, budget, specific RFPs, and Tools). I* chair attendance in these varies. The IETF chair is very active in the RFP subcommittee and Tools. The ISOC chair has reduced her attendance in the subcommittees. I think the I* chairs bring a broad view of the community and operational needs based on what's involved in doing their jobs than other appointees would not have. In order for the I* chairs to be effective, they will need to be involved. If they are involved, then they might as well be voting members. With the changes you propose we could end up with an IAOC that none of the I* chairs participate. As you point out, they are all busy and will have a hard time to following the issues if their involvement is optional. This will result in an IAOC that is disconnected from the community. I think it's very important for the I* chairs to share the responsibility for IAOC decisions by being voting members. Same for the IETF Trust, your proposal would result in the I* chairs not being members of the IETF Trust (unless the Trust was changed, another issue in itself). The current structure with the I* chairs being voting members of the IAOC has worked well. The I* members are involved in the important decisions, share the responsibility for the decisions, and keep the IAOC/IASA connected to the community. I am sympathetic to the issue this draft is attempting to resolve, but I think there are better ways to reduce the load we put on the I* chairs, than what this draft proposes. Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf