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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> > 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.
> 
> two reasons for doing this is because single-person functions 
> have led to 
> single-person "empires" (Marshall Rose and the NM area was 
> the most blatant 
> example; John Moy has been accused of the same thing wrt 
> OSPF; he's now got 
> 2 co-chairs, but still gets accused of it), and because we've 
> had numerous 
> instances of chairs dropping out on relatively short notice 
> (or with no 
> notice).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> if you have more than 2 people, is it required to designate a 
> "lead" among 
> them? This frequently happens in practice, even when they are 
> formally equals.... I am not sure of the value of formalizing it.
> 
I believ that in IESG we have formalized it, since we DO make
on of the ADs primary responsible for a WG. 

Bert