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

[Brian E Carpenter]

Eric,

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Agreed, we should rule nothing out at this point, but (solution warning)
> > my instinct right now is that giving WG chairs more explicit responsibility
> > is probably better than adding another layer of "management". Read Dilbert
> > if you want the arguments for this viewpoint.
> 
> This sort of disdain for "management" is pretty common among people
> with technical backgrounds. However, I think it's counterproductive
> in this context.

In a high tech organization with no formal existence, you have to be very
careful I think. Inserting layers is at least as likely to be a problem
as a solution.

> 
> The simple fact is that large groups of people need structure if
> they're going to work together. That means management. And there's
> a limit (between 5 and 25, depending on who you believe) on how
> many people a single person can reasonably manage. After that
> you simply have to introduce hierarchy.

Correct. Now the largest area today has 27 WGs and two ADs. I agree
it seems like too many, even for management by exception. But I'm quite
resistant to concluding that junior ADs would fix this problem, since
this is not a military command structure.

> 
> As for Dilbert, it seems to me that that's an argument that cuts
> both ways. No doubt Dilbert is smarter tha the PHB, but somehow
> for all those brains he's no more effective.

Indeed, but he's frustrated by out-of-touch senior managers as much as
by anything else.

   Brian