On 9/19/2011 8:35 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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.
Anything? I believe you do not believe that statement, but I think it accurately summarizes the focus of this thread, so far.
The problem is with how absolute your language is. It declares one criterion as entirely dominating all others.
What is needed is to consider this issue in terms of tradeoffs. So far, the thread hasn't, except a bit dismissively.
The issue that Bob has raised about the special capabilities of I* folk within IAOC discussions is not minor. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a bit subtle. For example, it took me awhile to understand. (We can count that as a weak proof...) Equally, how it gets applied is subtle.
It seems to be important spontaneously. So, for example, a view that the I* will "get involved" in discussions where their perspectives are needed is based on an inaccurate model of how and when those perspectives come into play. It presumes the ability to plan for the need. But what really happens is that most IAOC discussions need to wander over a broad range of issue and sometimes when they do, they trigger a connection in an I* member due to their perspective. Such triggers cannot be planned.
I don't know how to resolve this with a high level of certainty and safety. So I made a guess.
The proposal that Olaf has put forward is one attempt, by way of keeping I* Chairs involved, but relying on them less to attend every discussion and carry all the detail.
Whether that's produces a sufficient balance is an open question. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf