On 10/21/2013 2:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We mustn't forget that although ADs almost always attempt to steer (or manage) by persuasion and reasoning, they do have two or three ultimate weapons - the powers to replace WG chairs, to close WGs, and to decline to advance a document. This is what makes it hard to split 1) from 2), and makes it plausible to separate 3) from 1)+2), IMHO.
Offlist, Joel reminded me of these points, which do formally qualify as attributes of 'managers'. Still I think we should stop using terms like manager and director, because they invoke the wrong organizational tone, which I believe counters the underlying nature of the IETF.
That is, terms like manager or director invoke a model of daily hierarchical authority that does not match IETF reality. Worse, it encourages ADs to think of themselves as having and being authorities, rather than facilitators.
Area Directors actually do not 'direct' the work in the area. They almost never initiate it. They almost never define it. They almost never directly contribute to its substance. Rather, they facilitate grass-root processes to integrate it into the IETF and monitor its progress.
The "management" functions that are classic are hiring and firing chairs, refining charters, and prodding chairs to make wg progress. That's all real, and one can cite them to justify the terms.
But this fact misses the day-to-day reality of the IETF which is a bunch of grass-roots volunteers who combine to solve a problem that they, the grass roots folk, want solved.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net