On 8/10/14 6:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > The analogy to the Tao also suggests that the effort to compile > this document write things down, and get community review has > been worthwhile and constructive. What is less clear is > whether the result should be a BCP in the RFC Series or, like > the Tao, an evolving document. Two things: 1) I do think that it makes sense to have something like this in a wiki or informal document, both because I don't see a lot of value in adding more formal layers to the IETF organizational structure and because I do think a casual document is going to be more responsive to changing circumstances, and 2) I would object rather strenuously to this being published as a BCP, anyway. I am unclear what problem it solves - certainly, if there's an issue with underperforming chairs that really needs to be dealt with head-on rather than delegating to another individual (who may or may not perform). I continue to think that if you're in a situation in which you feel you cannot fire a chair, add another one rather than adding someone who's neither fish nor fowl, not really a chair but kind of sort- of one, anyway. Wiki page describing the secretary role: yea. Publishing a BCP further formalizing the secretary role: nay. Melinda