For what it's worth, I largely agree with John's statement of the
justification for Olaf's proposal.
Anything that the IETF can do, to make the IAB and IETF Chair positions less
of a full-time (or more) job, is a good thing.
I could be in the rough on whether this specific proposal is the right thing
to do, but I'd feel better about rejecting it if the people who insisted
that the IAOC and IETF Trust responsibilities could not be delegated, could
make a counteroffer on how the overall workload for these positions could be
reduced in a way that IS acceptable.
It would be helpful if we could organize to reduce the time commitment for
these roles. If not these responsibilities, what?
Tugging at the various corners of a full-size fitted sheet on a queen-sized
bed doesn't actually result in completely covering the mattress - it only
wears out the sheet!
Spencer
p.s. in the interests of full disclosure, I am mentioned in the
acknowledgements section of the draft John mentioned in his post, along with
Joel Halpern, but I had completely forgotten about that until I saw my name
:-)
Have been alot of discussion and suggestion and problems but
nothing that made me understand why, what is the underlaying
cause. (it could be that I'm just slow, we shouldn't rule that
out :-) )
Roger,
The problem is that, over time, the IAB and IETF Chair positions
have become full time (or more) jobs. Not only does that
require a huge time commitment, but the roles require a broader
range of skills and interests than are typically present in
members of the IETF community. That situation, in turn, has
several nasty effects. As three examples:
-- If there are conflicting priorities and demands on time,
something is going to get less attention than it deserves. The
right people to decide what is most important in a particular
case are the IAB and IESG, not a six-year-old document that
doesn't allow for individual cases.
-- Unless we have started believing in kings --even kings who,
once elected, serve more or less as long as they are willing
before stepping down-- the IETF Chair should not be lots more
important, nor should we assume he or she is inherently more
skilled in any given matter, than a consensus conclusion of the
IESG. The IAB Chair should be even less so. These people are
given roles of leadership and responsibility, not someone
anointed with infinite wisdom and time -- or even absolute
knowledge of what is good for the IETF and the Internet -- at
the time they assume those positions.
-- The pool of plausible candidates for the positions is
significantly reduced because, especially in difficult economic
times, there aren't very many people who can find sufficient
support for a long-term (nominally two years but four or more in
practice) full time commitment plus a large expense account for
a lot of travel, etc. Unless we want to be in a situation in
which candidates for those positions are selected almost
entirely on the basis of who has the resources, we had better be
looking for ways to reduce the scope of the positions.
While I think Olaf's current proposal is better in several ways
--including the provision that enables the Chairs to participate
as ex-officio members when they think it is appropriate, if you
are interested in a more lengthy discussion of "basic cause",
there is a more extended discussion of the issues (and largely
the same core proposal) in the now-rather-old
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf