I'm trying to avoid repeating myself, so I won't comment on everything.
On 17/02/2016 06:13, Michael StJohns wrote:
<snip>
> (Basically, when I looked at this I assumed that the three organizations - IESG, IAB and ISOC - should have similar treatments
> unless there was a good reason not to.
To the contrary, I think there are four organizations involved (IETF, IESG, IAB and ISOC)
that have very distinctive roles, and there is no reason to look for symmetry.
> There may be a reason from the IAOC's point of view to require the ISOC president in the
> ISOC slot, but then again there may not - I'd like to hear from them on this point.
Well, I don't think that it's really the IAOC's call.
> If not, then giving the ISOC BOT the
> ability to pick their representative seems a useful tweak to the current rules).
It isn't the ISOC BOT. It's the ISOC acting as an employer and funding agency. So
I agree with John on this: the ISOC President/CEO is the right person.
I should also clarify that I'm not proposing actually splitting the job of IESG
Chair from that of IETF Chair. I'm simply observing that they are two very different
roles, and speaking for the IESG on admin matters is different from speaking
for the IETF as a whole on admin or policy matters.
Regards
Brian