Re: IETF Chair tasks

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, 19 June, 2006 10:49 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd be interested to know if anyone has comments on
> > draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks-00.txt:
> >
> >    This document describes tasks performed by the IETF Chair,
> > the IESG
> >    Chair, and the Area Director of the General Area of the
> > IETF.  Its
> >    purpose is to inform the community of what these tasks
> > are, and to
> >    allow the community to consider whether combining all
> > these roles in
> >    one person is optimal.
> >
> > In particular, with the new NomCom cycle starting soon,
> > does anyone believe we should discuss the last point?
>
>
> Brian,
>
> I don't know if this is just my idiosyncrasies or if others
> might agree, but let me try to explain why I haven't responded
> to this note and won't do so before Montreal.
>
> I have discovered, reluctantly, that there are only a finite
> number of hours in a given week,

This is a point on which the draft and its author are in violent
agreement with you :-)

<snip>

> As far as this one is concerned, I have read it a couple of
> times.  Parts of your model of the roles and how they might
> plausibly be divided are inconsistent with my perceptions.

Understood, but as far as what tasks the I* Chair performs today
(and has done for at least the last few years), the draft is description,
not opinion. Of course, the way tasks are assigned to the differing
roles is a matter of judgement and opinion.

>   My
> sense is that some of the issues could be addressed in radically
> different ways, ones that might actually work better and, along
> some dimensions, require fewer changes.   
>
> That doesn't mean you are wrong.  It means that the topics need,
> IMO, further discussion and presentation and exploration of
> alternatives.  

That is certainly true.

<snip>

> If the IETF Chair position were up for review by this coming
> Nomcom,

It is. I started my term in March 2005. Time flies.

> I think I'd take your notes as part of a suggestion to
> the Nomcom that they solicit from potential candidates, not an
> ever-longer questionnaire, but an essay that specifically
> addresses these issues, possibly with the intention of compiling
> the results and getting them to the community and IESG as part
> of the decision process.

I certainly have it in mind to draw NomCom's attention to the draft.
It's up to them what use they choose to make of it.

> I could elaborate on that idea if
> anyone cared, but I presume we have a year before it is in the
> critical path.

(Un)fortunately not.

> Perhaps I should suggest what I would suggest if a participant
> in the community who was not IETF Chair or on the IESG floated a
> document like this on an individual basis:  Announce a beer BOF
> schedule for Montreal.  Offer, if necessary, to buy the first
> round or a beer for anyone who makes a constructive suggestion.
> And then see if, with appropriate lubrication, you get some good
> input or if anyone cares about the subject matter more than the
> beer itself.

I'm not completely convinced that beer is the appropriate choice
in Montreal, but I would definitely welcome informal discussion,
because I believe the community does need to face these issues.
I fully appreciate your comments (that I have snipped out) about
excessive process related discussions, but we need to ensure
that future NomComs have viable choices.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf