|
On 08/12/2014 10:53, Bob Hinden 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. OLD: Section 3 has listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG Secretaries. NEW: Section 3 has listed the functions and responsibilities of WG Chairs. If not, what's left for the chairs? Just a title? Exactly like having 3 WG chairs leads to dilution of responsibility, I fear that that same dilution of responsibility will apply here. At least with the way it's specified in this document, i.e, like a formal role. Maybe it boils down to the fact that I have not seen a successful secretary in action. +1 to no publishing this document. Regards, Benoit Bob |