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

[Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>]

> 
> My thinking:
> 
> We're increasingly clear on where we want to go, I think.
> 
> 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".

Except when they say "Use less time to do tasks" :) - whatever we do here,
we need to continue to weigh timeliness strongly.

> And a core method of achieving scaling is separation of function - so that 
> we can make use of more people effectively.


> 
> Key words:
> 
>   - Separating document review from WG management, so that both
>     roles can be strengthened
>   - Separating a "direction-setting function" (management?) from a
>     "day-to-day followup" (executive?)
>   - Separating the "business management" aspects of
>     from "technology management".
> 
> Not all of these need to result in distinct entities. And it's very 
> important to keep the ability to have an unity of purpose within the 
> leadership - if we create distinct entities that pull in different 
> directions, we lose something important.

It is not only pulling in separate directions that can hurt.  It can also
hurt to create entities that have little clout.  What stick for saying No does
the "day-to-day followup" group have?  I see limited clout unless they are
hierarchical/delegated from the group with document approval authority.

It's a question of design:  hierarchy or something looser..  What is the
distribution of the  authority?  This is not a question of authority for the
authority's sake, but because the ability to say No, or Qualified Yes, along
charter lines, will need a basis.  I think we have to talk about this explicitly.

> 
> 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.
> 
I think a number of us are eager to share ideas at this point.   And perhaps
the current plan is an IESG plan, based on what happened in the plenary.
Your reference is to that?

Allison