Re: What do we want to achieve from reorganizing our functions?

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Harald,

IMO, you are thinking along the right lines...

At 07:56 AM 7/25/2003 -0700, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> The key concept of the management structure is "scaling": Getting more 
> bandwidth for planning, thinking, managing and communicating. That' what 
> the WGs ask for, and that's what I think the Internet needs from us. 
> Almost every complaint I hear comes down to "use more time on us".
Yes.  We need to find more time for the personnel management aspects
of our jobs -- developing first-level managers and technical leaders
in the organization, communicating with the WG chairs, etc.

> And a core method of achieving scaling is separation of function - so that 
> we can make use of more people effectively.
Yes, and also having fewer people do each job.

The IETF runs extensively on a concept called "two-in-a-box" --
where two people are jointly responsible for most functions.
This has some benefits, but it actually takes considerably more
combined work than having a function run by one person (because
of the need for the two to communicate), and things happen
slower.

This gets even worse when there are 3 or 4 people responsible
for day-to-day management of a function.  And the idea of
having more than 4 people responsible for managing anything is
almost completely unworkable.

The IESG should continue to make certain types of decisions
as a whole -- high-level strategic decisions, etc.  But, we
should have a clear understanding of who (individuals or
very small groups) is responsible for each area of day-to-day
management, and only strategic-level decisions and issues
should be raised to the whole body.

This should result in more time for each of us.

We should also look for functions that we are currently doing
that don't need to be done by the top technical leaders and/or
managers in the organization, and find other ways to accomplish
those things.

> Key words:
>
>  - Separating document review from WG management, so that both
>    roles can be strengthened
Yes.  In particular, WG management is currently suffering.

>  - Separating a "direction-setting function" (management?) from a
>    "day-to-day followup" (executive?)
I agree with Randy's terminology -- leadership and management.
These could also be characterized by strategic decision making vs.
tactical/logistical decision making.

>  - Separating the "business management" aspects of
>    from "technology management".
Yes.  Perhaps we could form a small sub-group that could deal
with the "business management" aspects -- they'd be handled
more efficiently that way, and would take less total time for
the group.

I think that you need to carry this a bit further, though,
as each of the areas that you've mentioned could be broken
down a bit further.

> I've got some ideas on how we can get there - but I'd like to float this 
> one by the IESG first to see what other people think.
Sounds good so far.  What's the next step?

Margaret