On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob,Good... and next time when we meet over beer I can reveal the correct translation :-)
Goggle translate was helpful here :-)
I fear it might be "too much information."
This all sounds good. But do you agree that workload for the chairs is an issue?
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.
The Chairs think that is it, which is enough evidence for me.
Because I thought Jonne was saying that it is an issue and the solutions should come from a better organization within the IAOC rather than from Olaf's proposal. But if I read the above, it almost sounds like you think everything is done pretty much as well as it can be done, and there's little to change. Up-leveling the discussion: I guess we need to agree about the problem statement before we can talk about the solutions.
Here is the problem as I see it. It is all well and good to say that the IAOC should be more oversight and less administrative, but there is 5 years of running code to the contrary. (I seem to remember a certain IETF Chair predicting the withering away of the IAOC's workload as soon as the CNRI transition was worked through.) I frankly just don't see that changing with the IETF structured the way it is, and I do not see a fundamental reorganization coming soon. In addition, the work of the IAOC (and Trust) is greatly improved by the input of the Chairs. Yes, they represent bodies with multiple members, but while each member may have equal status, they do not all have equal interest in operational matters. (I know, for example, that some ADs are not that interested in hotel contracts.) Plus, a lot of that benefit comes from immersion in the issues and (to be blunt) immersion is motivated by responsibility.
So, how to reduce the load on the Chairs ? This in my opinion a governance issue, and, as it happens, we have some 5000 years of governance experience to draw from. This problem is very common in governments (or companies) as they grow - positions that formerly took one person become impossible for one person to do. The typical way to deal with that is to grant responsibility to another person or persons, in other words, to delegate the responsibility. That was more the approach of the first draft of this I-D, and so I like that part of it better. My chief reaction to the first draft was that it wasn't followed through. It created basically new positions, but had little to make sure that their holders would have the knowledge, responsibility and authority for the job.
So, to be specific, here is a proposal. Create a second Area Director in the General Area. Have this second AD be primarily responsible for operational matters, and be the IESG ex-officio member of the IAOC / Trustee of the Trust. This could be a new person, or the IESG could have a tradition that an outgoing AD from another area serve in the post. (The IETF Chair should be able to offload more responsibilities than just IAOC meetings to this person, but that is an IESG / IETF Chair matter.)
The IAB is not so usefully subdivided, but it could likewise create a vice-chair, which it could call something different. The point is that, if the Chair is not going to undertake the role, there should be someone who agrees that, not only will they serve on some committee, but also that they will take responsibility for that service with their sponsoring organization. I don't think that just having a new IAB or IESG nominated member, by itself, is going to accomplish that.
Regards
Marshall
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf