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

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <E19gavM-0003FZ-HA@ran.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes:
>> 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.
>
>the problem is that authority for document approval is not clearly
>delegated from the iesg to the wg chairs.  this goes back to two
>things i said
>  o it's documents all the way down, they're what really count
>  o the organization is not top down hierarchic, the iesg does not
>    _really_ have full and delegatable authority
>
>so the wg chairs do not feel that they have the power to say "this
>document will not fly unless X is done."  so they say things such
>as "unless X is done, it will not get past the iesg."  they pass
>the buck because
>  o they feel they don't have the power
>  o it's easier

Note that per 2418, chairs *don't* have the power to block documents.  
The chairs' role is almost completely process-oriented.  I suppose that 
with a very strict charter, he or she would have some content leverage, 
but we've basically relied on WG consensus for content.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb