IESG restructuring (Re: Example of the One Liners out ofcontext)

[Margaret Wasserman]

At 04:34 PM 5/27/2003 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > Conflict of interest is simply unavoidable.
>
>This might or might not be true. One crucial question is if those who are
>members of the IESG are equally open and neutral with regard to proposed
>problem solutions addressing the IESG than someone who is new to this club.
>A second question is if the whole process would benefit from a new AD, who
>would bring in fresh perspectives and ideas because she or he doesn't take
>the current structure so much for granted as those who have grown up in it.

I think that it is important to remember that there are several
leadership positions that are important to any WG:

         (1) The WG chair(s), providing direct management
                 for the effort.
         (2) Any document editors and/or design team leads,
                 as appointed by the WG chair.
         (3) The "responsible AD", providing director-
                 level management for the effort and
                 serving as the first-line of appeal
                 for WG chair decisions.
         (4) The co-AD, who can serve as a mediator between
                 the WG chair(s) and responsible AD, if
                 needed.  This person can also back the
                 work of the WG to the IESG, even if the
                 responsible AD is unwilling to do so.
                 This offers a check against AD power
                 abuse.

In my experience, the WG chairs and both ADs form a fairly
tight management team that works as a group to make the
most important WG decisions, with the WG chairs making all
of the routine and day-to-day decisions. The WG chairs
often have as much or more influence on the direction and
tone of the WG than the "responsible AD".  For example, WG
chairs typically write the WG charter, control the
milestones/schedule, determine meeting agendas, etc.

So, in many ways, it is more important how we choose the
chair(s) for the process improvement efforts than it is
how we choose the ADs.

I'm not against the idea of an additional AD, and I actually
think that the IETF might benefit in several ways from
having two ADs for the General area (to provide a co-AD
for existing work in that area, as well as helping to
handle increased load from this effort).

I am against the idea of creating another single-AD area,
when we already know that there are some potential problems
with the one-AD area that we already have.

I don't think that it is important to make the new AD
position temporary, as all leadership positions in the IETF
may be subject to change based on the output of this
effort, all ADs are appointed for a maximum of two years,
and the IESG can remove an AD position at any time.  So,
I think having special rules for this position just
introduces unnecessary complication.

Margaret