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

[Brian E Carpenter]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> writes:
> > Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > 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.
> I hear that a lot, but I'm not sure why people believe that,
> except for the usual argument about the devil you know. Moreover,
> I'm starting to think that the "no formal existence" thing is part
> of the problem as well.

Can you be specific? Because changing this (e.g. by making IETF
a legal component of ISOC, or by separately incorporating IETF) 
would be a step with tremendous indirect consequences.

> 
> > > 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.
> I'm not sure what it not being a military command structure has
> to do with it. The principles of hierarchy and staff management
> are pretty standard in business as well.

Well, most companies are flattening their hierarchy these days,
and at least in my company, matrix relationships are the rule
rather than the exception. (A.k.a. getting rid of silos.)

In fact, many of the problems that come up too late in our
documents seem to be ones that result from *missing* matrix
relationships between WGs. Adding hierachy increases the risk.

> 
> > > 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.
> That's one way to look at it, but Dilbert could of course quit
> and start his own company if he weren't so clueless. I don't
> want to spend a lot of time on the exegesis of Dilbert, but
> my reading of it was always that Dilber thought himself superior
> to the management but was actually every bit as much a loser
> in his own way.

OK, let's drop the Dilbert analogy...

  Brian