Re: Last Call: <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> (IETF Working Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Dec 8, 2014, at 4:53 AM 12/8/14, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 12:22 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>>> So it should be possible to reach agreement on text changes that
>>>> would take this tone out of your reading.
>>> 
>>> I actually do not think that it should be published at all, as
>>> I don't think it solves any problem that the IETF is currently
>>> experiencing and I tend to think that it might lead to further
>>> ossification of the organization.  That is to say, I think
>>> that the cost/benefit balance does not work out in favor of
>>> publication.
>> 
>> i agree.  i will not add a bunch of sarcastic analogies about
>> more bureaucratic bumph we just don't need.
>> 
>> i also agree with your suspicion that this is an attept to patch
>> a chairing problem.  one suspects possible iesg unwillingness to
>> bite bullets.
>> 
> 
> I agree.  The list of tasks assigned in this draft to the secretary should be done by the w.g. chairs.  If they can't do these tasks, then they shouldn't be chairs.
> 
> Bob
> 

I agree, as well.  I've come to agree that there's no need for an update to RFC 2418 and no need to publish this document.

Anecdotally, the two WGs I am currently administering do not generate enough admin work to warrant secretaries.

- Ralph






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]