Re: Last Call: An IESG charter to Informational

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> --On fredag, juni 06, 2003 14:17:42 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brian@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Harald et al,
> >
> >> 2. The composition of the IESG
> > ...
> >>    The IETF Executive Director is the person charged with running the
> >>    IETF Secretariat.
> > ...
> >> 7.1 Staff supervision
> >>
> >>    The IETF Chair has primary responsibility for supervising the work of
> >>    the IETF Secretariat,
> >
> > There is an inconsistency between these two points - it actually can be
> > read to imply that the Chair bypasses the ExecD and micro-manages the
> > Secretariat.
> >
> > How about
> >    The IETF Chair has primary responsibility for supervising the work of
> >    the IETF Executive Director and through him or her, the Secretariat,
> > ... ?
> 
> I'd rather try to make it more general - when I negotiate MOU stuff with
> Kahn & Vezza, I'm not working through the ExDir, but it sure has to do with
> directing the work of the secretariat. Perhaps a different word than
> "supervising" should be used?

I see the point. Try "managing the relationship with the IETF Executive 
Director and the Secretariat,..."?

> > Also:
> >
> >> 2. The composition of the IESG
> > ...
> >>    The IESG also has liaisons, ...
> >>    which positions to have is decided by the IESG.
> >
> > This is slightly inconsistent with the IAB Charter, which
> > is BCP, and states that the IAB does have a liaison. Actually it's worse,
> > when I look at section 3.4 of RFC 2850 - it says
> >>>    The chair of the IAB and another full IAB member (other than the IETF
> >>>    chair), to be selected by the IAB, shall serve as liaisons to the
> >>>    IESG.
> >
> > (i.e. the IAB Chair is defined as a liaison, not as ex officio).
> 
> Mumble. The theory in my mind behind the chair being a member was to make
> the relationship more symmetrical, to make having two IAB members on the
> IESG seem slightly less strange, and (when the question of who decided on
> liaisons came up) to have at least one IAB representative be immutable.
> 
> Do you happen to remember the logic being used in 1994 (the language is
> unchanged from 1601) to justify the "two liaisons" language?

I wasn't in the 1994 discussion; you could ask Christian Huitema. Maybe 
you should simply insert a note about the inconsistency:

  Note that the IAB Charter documents this relationship in slightly
  different terms.

     Brian