On 8/19/14, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Sunday, August 10, 2014 19:37 -0800 Melinda Shore > <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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). All organisations or departments have secrataries positions. I think it is very important position even if its tasks are small but are important which it has no much responsibility on secretary but on the chair because he/she should always take all the admin-tasks responsibility. >> 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. Firing chairs is the AD responsibility not the community. We are not in that situation, if an AD is in that situation, then he/she can add chair or secretary to help in small activities (depends on the reasons of situation), however, our ADs are perfect in that and I see no problem at ADs management so far (not sure of your example is it real or imaginary for future). > > Agree strongly but let me turn the above around: > > While informal guidance is probably always a good idea (as long > as getting it together doesn't suck energy out of useful > technical work), the secretary role needs formal definition and > procedures only if it is really a Junior Chair. If we don't > want Junior Chairs (and I agree with Melinda and the draft that > we don't), then the job description is best kept as informal and > flexible as possible. I never seen secretary positions as informal/hidden in successful organisation. IETF may have many informal groups or teams but I think that should stop and we need more formal and not hidden positions so we can progress in management activities. All successful managers need assistance of secretaries. I recommend even ADs need help of secretaries, why not :-). > > In particular, WG Secretary roles have been used in the past for > leadership development. That is one benefit, but not the most important advantage, IMHO, WGs need assistance with that position. > > Doing that well requires a lot of > flexibility. Creating an explicit Apprentice Chair role (even > if named something else) would probably undesirable for several > reasons but a document that restricts the ability for Chair(s) > to assign some of their responsibilities to a Secretary who > works under reasonably close supervision would impede that > possibility and, if the document were a BCP, make it subject to > appeal. We don't create a new chair role, but only a normal secretary role (it is known what is secretary roles in successful organisations, they are about very small tasks without powers and all monitored/approved/signed by manager/chair). Chair roles have powers that cannot be delegated only to co-chair or AD. There can be no appeal for the secretary role because secretaries have no power on WG, that is similar in any organisation/departments/office in the world. AB