On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > I theory I can agree, but in practice I think the more separation there is the more likelihood for organizational problems. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be close coordination between the IESG/IAB/ISOC and having a responsible person (currently the chairs, there are other possibilities as outlined in some other emails, XO model, etc.) taking voting responsibility is the best way to implement that. It won't happen if it's just another person the, for example, the IESG appoints as your proposal sugests. Likewise, I don't think having the chairs be non-voting members will work because the chairs are too busy for this to work over time. I do not yet see how the other proposal, which is about diluting responsibility over more person, will keep the persons that end up being chair better informed. But that is because I have not seen the details. Remember that my proposal started out with allowing the chairs to delegate. In a way the alternative proposals may be subject to the same critique. I am also not 100% sure that close coordination between the IESG/IAB/ISOC means that the chairs need to participate in each others meeting. It might be much more effective if they have a meeting among each other to exchange high-level information and 'heads-ups'. --Olaf (keeps listening) ________________________________________________________ Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf