Jari, A few comments on your email to Jonne. On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Jonne, > > First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta! Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä mistään, 'kele!) Too bad the English version was not as graphic. Goggle translate was helpful here :-) > > Anyway, I like your description of the issue and it helps me understand the concerns. That being said, I could probably construct a similar argument for all of the bodies that an IETF chair, for instance, has to attend. Are we really saying that under all circumstances, the chairs have to attend everything that IAOC deals with? And be voting members? And if that is too much then the entire IAOC has to delegate more of its work? Really? And if the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why aren't they voting members in IAB and IESG? > > I have some trust in the chairs ability to prioritize, delegate and engage in the important discussions. They do that today. > > I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any case, if you and Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to take, can you comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be tried? (And shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?) I am not sure what you mean by the members of the IAOC doing the actual work. The IAD does most of the work behind the scenes. That includes writing RFPs, motions, budgets, SOWs, agendas, works with the volunteer minute takers to produce the minutes, organizes contractor reviews, negotiates with contractors, works with ISOC finance department, works with legal council, organizes conference calls and meetings, etc., etc. The secretariat does the leg work to collect information on venues, costs, hotels, etc. The IAOC voting members review, comment, approve/disapprove things, but that's not where most of the real work is. The voting members are responsible for the decisions and actions. I want to make it clear that most of the actual work is not done by the voting members. Given the source of our members, we do tend to get involved in details for better or worse. The IAOC (and Trust chairs) have a bigger load than the rest of the voting members. Bob > > Jari > > On 19.09.2011 15:35, jonne.soininen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Hi Olaf, >> >> I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings >> about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game. >> >> A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I >> haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that. >> Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily >> have the up-to-date information of today, anymore. >> >> Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot >> of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think >> it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other >> ways. >> >> However, I think the solution is a bit "menemistä perse edellä puuhun" (== >> putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body >> that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC >> is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management, >> asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you >> have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the >> president and CEO of ISOC). >> >> The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the >> biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits >> of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that the >> community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders >> (the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the >> trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership >> of the trust - you just cannot delegate that. >> >> Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for people >> who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be >> managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the >> IETF financials, assents, and other important activities. >> >> Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the >> operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This might >> mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to >> make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational >> stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and >> doing the oversight. >> >> If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload >> problem is a problem only the IAOC can fix, and cannot be done by >> reorganizing the IAOC. >> >> Sorry for the long e-mai. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jonne. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf