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

[Dave Crocker]

Harald,



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

By that logic, so should all the ADs and IAB members.  And you right.

But it has nothing to do with the work of actually providing oversight.


HTA> - under our current understanding of the Nomcom rules, the IESG cannot add
HTA> members at will; new members have to come through the nomcom process.

Unless the rules have changed, the IESG decides when it wants to create
or eliminate AD slots.  For  new slot, it then asks Nomcom to find
someone to fill it.

Is there a problem with this procedure that you were highlighting, with
respect to a Process AD slot?



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

We have a non-optimal situation. A number of folks seem to be spending
far more time worrying about the procedural niceties than about the IETF
performance problems and the community discontent that brought us to
this point.


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

You are worred that a single Process AD won't have anyone to talk with
about their efforts?


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>