Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re

Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Tue May 20 15:42:51 CEST 2003



--On 19. mai 2003 14:58 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:

[quoting Ted]
>> The corollary work load also worries me.  If one of the
>> concerns here is to get someone who can focus very tightly on
>> these issues, then asking them to take on the role of an AD
>> seems to be an issue.  There is also a strong risk that having
>> to do the work *as it is now* on a daily basis may limit the
>> individual's ability to imagine it in new ways.  From the
>> outside, I know I personally had a concern about how focused
>> on tool development the IESG seemed to me to be.  While I
>> ...
>
> This is a reasonable concern.  But, again in my devil's advocate role,
> let's turn it around.  We've heard multiple statements to the effect that
> "IETF Chair" is a full-time job.  No one has come forward and said that
> it is really a walk in the park that can be done effectively with a few
> mornings a week.  So, we are going to add at least a couple of WGs to the
> IETF Chair's workload, and expect that he will be able to effectively
> coordinate the efforts and output of those WGs with the nomcom, lpr, and
> maybe some other efforts that potentially overlap it. That is potentially
> a lot of work.  If Harald can say "I've got the extra cycles, no
> problem", then there is no argument for a separate area independent of
> the concerns others have had about the process of the current IESG
> supervising this work.    But I haven't heard him say that yet.

some pointers, not in alignment.....

- no matter what else, the IETF Chair has to follow the work of the problem 
WG, the solutions WGs and anything else with that much potential IETF 
impact no matter whether he/she is the shepherding AD or not.

- under our current understanding of the Nomcom rules, the IESG cannot add 
members at will; new members have to come through the nomcom process. This 
is one reason why temporary ADs are (so far) drawn only from existing ADs.
And, as others have said, we've got no provisions for "AD, junior grade"; 
you're either on the IESG or you're not.

- as Ted has indicated, spinning up into being an effective IESG member is 
quite a job, and involves a lot of learning. So if you need an AD to be 
effective "day before yesterday", adding a new IESG member isn't optimal.

- one reason why we've gone to 2-AD areas is that there's always SOMEONE to 
talk to whose area of responsibility within the IESG is closely related to 
yours.

- no, it's not a walk in the park.

Drawing no conclusions at this point in time.





More information about the Problem-statement mailing list