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

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 20. mai 2003 13:33 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

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

Yes, and they are. But I follow it even more closely than the others.
>
> But it has nothing to do with the work of actually providing oversight.

It has - oversight cannot be provided without following the work, and a 
significant portion of the work of oversight is to follow (in, ideally, 
near real time) discussions like this one.

> HTA> - under our current understanding of the Nomcom rules, the IESG
> >cannot add 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?

just that it takes time.

> HTA> - 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.
>
> 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.

my point was that we either relax the requirement on "operative day before 
yesterday" or we (perhaps initially) load the hat on some existing IESG 
member.
>
>
> HTA> - 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.
>
> You are worred that a single Process AD won't have anyone to talk with
> about their efforts?

no - I was thinking about adding another AD to the General area - either 
assigning the hat to an existing IESG member or asking Nomcom to fill a new 
slot.

                       Harald