Re: Another IESG Charter revision

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>>> 1.1 The role of the IESG The Internet Engineering Steering
>>>	Group (IESG) is the group that exists to perform the
>>>	overarching operational and technical management functions
>>>	of the Internet Engineeering Task Force (IETF).
>> s/exists to//
> changed from previous versions - I wanted to emphasize that the
> IESG doesn't have any other purpose than to be IETF
> management. The previous version had "is the function", but
> Brian Carpenter didn't like a group of people being called a
> function. Better language?

"exists to" adds zero semantic protein and sounds domineering

>> s/overarching//
> the point raised was that WG chairs perform management functions
> too. I wanted some way to say that the IESG doesn't do all the
> management functions of the IETF, but that "the buck stops
> here". Better language?

The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is where the buck
stops for the internal operational and all technical management
functions of the Internet Engineeering Task Force (IETF).

>>> o  The IETF Chair, who may also function as an Area Director when
>>>    appropriate
>> who is also the director of the general area.  do not imply that
>> this gives you the position to be the AD for arbitrary wgs.
> I had the general area in the previous version, and John Klensin
> told me to avoid casting the existence of that area, or the need
> for the chair to be an AD, in stone.

no areas are cast in stone.  then

The IETF Chair also currently functions as the Area Director of
the General Area.

> Given what Fred did with the General area back in 1999, what
> groups go into the General area seems limited by the General
> AD's imagination anyway....

let's not go there right now

>>>    However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and
>>>    financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential,
>>>    and the chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude
>>>    liaison and ex officio members whose presence is seen as
>>>    inappropriate for the particular discussion from such discussions.
>> also exclusion of conflicted folk when discussing things such as
>> appeals
> mumble. The tradition has been that the IESG discusses an appeal against a 
> decision with all ADs present, including the AD responsible for the area in 
> which the appealed decision was taken.
> This has been thought to be good because it provided maximum information 
> about the background - I think.
> What about the following strawman?
>    <t>The chair may also apply exclusion to full members who have a
>    serious conflict of interest on an issue. Members can also
>    choose to recuse themselves from discussion of an issue, or refrain
>    from casting a vote on an issue, if they feel that is
>    appropriate.</t>

i was specifically thinking of exclusion of iab folk

randy