Definition of power and responsibility [Re: Delegation of power(wasRE: Section 2.4 ofdraft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt)]

[Spencer Dawkins]

I don't mean to imply that all SDOs are alike, but re: the "side-by-side" 
comment in Margaret's e-mail, 3GPP was very careful (for political reasons) 
to have several side-by-side Technical Specification Groups (TSGs - see 
http://www.3gpp.org/TB/home.htm for details), but this has evolved to the 
Services and Systems Aspects TSG becoming a pseudo-plenary (meets the week 
after all other TSGs, the other TSGs present their work there, etc.), so 
I'd look for examples of side-by-side decompositions that stayed side-by-side 
before going too far down this path. "Side-by-side" isn't "first-among-equals",
but it seems difficult to keep it that way.

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw at windriver.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:23 AM
> To: john.loughney at nokia.com
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no; brian at hursley.ibm.com
> Subject: RE: Definition of power and responsibility [Re: Delegation of
> power(wasRE: Section 2.4 ofdraft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt)]
> 
> My thoughts run something like this:
> 
[deleted down to]
> 
> BTW, I don't believe that we should "dilute" the power of the IESG.
> _Someone_ has to do the things that the IESG is doing.  I do think
> that it might be reasonable to spread that power over a larger group
> of people, or over more than one group (side-by-side, or in layers).
> But, some group _has_ to have ultimate authority over what does and
> doesn't get published on the standards track.  And, some group (not
> necessarily the same group) has to have authority over the process
> (most notably the ability to start and stop WGs, agree to WG charter
> changes, etc.).  I, personally, think that there would be benefits
> to having the process management done in a separate group from the
> quality assurance, but other clearly think otherwise.
> 
> Margaret