General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Keith Moore]

> >The AD finding a problem trusts the AD who manages the WG to know whether 
> >the WG chair can be trusted to find a solution to the identfied problem or 
> >not. Delegation of trust....
> 
> Unfortunately, formal delegation can be transitive.  But, trust
> is not.

strictly speaking, no.  but in practice, it often works.  that is, if you know
your fellow ADs well (and you get to know them pretty quickly) you develop a
good idea of whether they will get a problem fixed when they say they will. 
the specific means by which they get the problem fixed doesn't matter so much.
if they delegate the work to a WG chair, fine; if they get personally
involved, that's also fine.  (also, this isn't blind trust - the results
*will* be checked if they are of significant import.) the degree to which the
AD trusts a WG chair will vary from one AD to another, and one WG chair to
another.  this seems entirely appropriate.

I don't think of this as delegation of trust so much as delegation of
authority. I would not want to micro-manage someone else's area by telling an
AD that he/she had to get a problem solved by some particular mechanism.

> A management team of over 200 people requires
> clear delegation of roles, responsibilities and areas of
> authority, or it won't work effectively.

clear communication about the division of responsibility is important.  but
clear does not imply uniform.  

Keith