--On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 14:16 -0400 Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > I had the comments below on a previous incarnation of "how to > fix the IAOC because Chairs are overloaded". > > I have to say -- I don't think the substantive points are > addressed in the new proposal, which leaves the Chairs as > spectators to the IAOC process. > > I don't think you can disagree with me that, with no vote > (recognized voice) in a committee's work, there's even less > possibility to find the hours to keep up with the substance of > discussions and thus be able to contribute meaningfully to a > discussion when the time comes. As ex-officio non-voting members, with the main responsibility for representing IAB and IESG views and needs resting with someone else, that seems ok to me. At the same time, I think you underestimate the ability of the people involved to read in really quickly if that is necessary/ important. > Substantively -- this takes the Chairs off the IAOC, just as > the original proposal did, and my comments/confusion/questions > below are still current for me. I think I responded to most of these in a different subthread earlier this week. The remarks below are just a quick summary. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt > Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:06:07 -0400 > From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > CC: John C Klensin <klensin@xxxxxxx> > > > I'm having troubles reconciling a couple of things: > > 1/ Recent discussion (different draft) on the importance of > the IAOC > implementing IETF (and IAB) policy and admin requirements; not > having > the IAOC *setting* those requirements; > > 2/ Suggesting that the IAB & IETF Chairs should not be on the > IAOC. Leslie, You appear to be assuming that the proposal is somehow removing the IAB and IESG (and ISOC) representation/ presence on the IAOC and Trust. No one has suggested that. What has been suggested is that the determination of who is most able to effectively represent those bodies can sensibly be left up to them rather than assuming that the Chairs are somehow endowed with special knowledge and wisdom that no one else shares. I think it would be really stupid for the IESG, IAB, or ISOC leadership to put someone on the IAOC who wasn't thoroughly familiar with the thinking in those bodies about IASA issues and competent in the issues the IAOC and Trust address. I think we can trust those bodies to avoid being stupid (except possibly as a tradeoff against worse choices) and don't need to invent rules that ban stupidity. > As it stands the IETF Chair is in a unique position to > understand all > the requirements of the IETF community and IETF administrative > activities. There isn't someone else who can step in: all > other IESG > members are tasked, as a primary responsibility, with looking > after their particular areas. Sometimes I feel as if the IETF Chair is "tasked" with doing a good Superman imitation -- understanding everything, knowing everything, leaping tall buildings... Despite my frequent role as a critic, I'm also impressed with how good a job recent incumbents have done at that. But I also think it is an unreasonable expectation along both the knowledge and time dimensions and that there are usually people on the IESG (and elsewhere) who can do parts of the job (including broad understanding and perspective) as well. I also note that nothing in any of these proposals prevents the IESG from appointing the Chair to the voting position on the IAOC if they conclude that is the best choice after all tradeoffs are considered and the Chair has the available cycles. The proposal increases flexibility; it need not actually change the membership of the IAOC even if some of us assume that it would. > The IAB Chair similarly sits at the confluence of all the > issues hitting > the IAB, and is specifically responsible for tracking them so > that they > get addressed by the IAB. While the IAB Chair can, in theory, > delegate > actions on particular topics, it at least used to be the case > that some > tasks are too tricky or unappealing to get other > involvement(too admin, > not enough architectural content). And, even with successful > delegation > of individual tasks, the IAB Chair retains the perspective > across all > the activities -- technical, IANA, RFC Editor, etc. I can't speak for you, Olaf, or Bernard, but I just don't believe it. There are often people who have perspectives as good as the Chair. That is likely to get more differentiated over time as the Program model permits more tasks to be spread around, probably with the IAB Chair not intimately involved in some of them. Indeed, if any member of the IAB is guaranteed to have the perspective you are asking for, it would be the Exec Dir, not the Chair. >... > Pulling these positions off the IAOC would succeed in > weakening the > IAOC, even as it increases the stress levels in the positions > as the > respective Chairs try to figure out what is going on with the > administrative support for the balls they are trying to keep > moving. I don't think "weakening the IAOC" has been convincingly demonstrated. Some people believe that it will weaken the IAOC, some believe that replacing the Chairs with people who have more cycles to pay attention to the IAOC (and possibly even a closer match in terms of skills) would, in the long run, strengthen the IAOC. Perhaps letting go of the IAOC memberships would cause stress on some Chairs because they felt they needed much closer involvement in what was going on with the IASA, but then they should persuade the relevant bodies to put the Chairs into the voting positions. I would question the appropriateness of a chair who felt that he or she had to be personally and intimately involved in everything, but that is another matter. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf