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

James Kempf kempf at docomolabs-usa.com
Wed May 21 11:02:53 CEST 2003


> Given that people who were there at the time have indicated that
most
> of these problems have existed in the IETF for at least 10 years,
how
> could you reasonably claim that any IAB/IESG member who has served
in the
> last ten years is any less culpable than current IAB/IESG members?
>

First off, I don't believe any of the current IAB/IESG members are in
any sense "culpable". If the problems are a result of the current
structure of the organization, then even highly talented people with
the best of intentions can have their talents and intentions
frustrated to the point where they give up and quit. I assume, in
fact, that some of the IESG/IAB members who have served during the
last 10 years did, in fact, not continue to serve for exactly that
reason. Their knowledge and understanding could be helpful in guiding
the reform process. And, as I mentioned, many people on this list and
elsewhere continue to place blame on existing members, so to the
extent that some people believe existing IESG members are "culpable"
as you put it, that perception must be accounted for, which appointing
an existing AD won't do.

The only other alternative I can think of that might have good chance
of success is to get someone who knows alot about process engineering
in organizations but might not know much at all about IETF (because
those kinds of people don't tend to hang around IETF). This would
probaby mean someone with world class expertise in management. This is
not unlike how we select ADs for technical areas: they are expected to
be world class experts in their area (routing, security, etc.). But
the downside is, not knowing anything about IETF or having any
commitment to it, they might not understand all the subtilties of the
IETF community and end up alienating people by making uninformed
suggestions.

            jak



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list