On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:54 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Secretaries are fine but, if 2418 is changed, the change > shouldn't be to institutionalize Secretaries either. It should: > > (1) Make clear that the statements in 2418 about Secretaries are > to be taken as examples, not limits. > > (2) Make clear that WG Chairs can, subject to review with/by the > relevant AD, delegate anything they like to anyone they like and > that such delegations should allow whatever access to tools, > etc., is needed to do the job... as long as such delegations do > no change the responsibility and accountability of the with WG > Chair. If a WG Chair (after whatever consultation with the > relevant AD they consider appropriate) wants to delegate some > tasks to someone who is not an officially-designated WG > Secretary, we shouldn't have documents that accidentally get in > the way. > > For the record, I'm not convinced that a change to 2418 is > needed for the above: the IESG has claimed, and gotten away > with, far more significant changes to procedures my means of > "statements" and the 2418 text does not appear to me to contain > any words that restrict access to tools that did not exist when > it was written. ++
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail