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

[Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>]

> 
> --On 26. juli 2003 12:53 -0700 Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com> wrote:
> ....
> >> 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.
> 
> I think we must have an organization that anchors things - one of the 
> things I think is critical is that peole know that if they act in concert 
> with their "superiors", they will not be second-guessed or undercut.
> We do the same thing today in the WG Chair/AD relationship (when it works 
> well) - a WG chair will know that he can say "yes" or "no", and the AD will 
> back him up.
> (btw, this is one of the things that makes the review stage deeply 
> uncomfortable at times - a review is always a round of second-guessing. And 
> if the WG chair has missed serious stuff in his handling of the doc, that 
> feels like he's being undercut by the IESG.)

There might need to be more formal delegation - not "acting in concert", which
sounds very informal, but delegation down...hierarchy.  There might be less of the
uncomfortable situation you describe, because responsibility would be taken by the layer
below more strongly.  As Randy says, in his note, without the clout to make it
stick (approval), there's no incentive for the working group chairs not to leave
it to IESG to say "No".   If we give a layer below, whether the WG chairs, or a WG
management group (I call them sub-ADs) delegated authority, there's less informality 
and need to run purely on relationships.  

> 
> > 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?
> 
> It may turn into an IESG plan.
> 
?

Sounds like we need to talk during fab call.  Time matters here too.