Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

I agree with this, but I think the Secretariat needs to be involved somehow
to keep track. Individual liason representatives sometimes get overburdened
and might load shed by delaying a response longer than is polite or
desirable. Having a ping from someone to remind them, then a further ping to
the IESG as the IETF management body if the individual liason continues to
not respond expeditiously, might help to insure a more focus.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
To: <fred@cisco.com>; <harald@alvestrand.no>; <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Cc: <iab@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>; <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>;
<sob@harvard.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Liaison handling (Re: IAB comments on
draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt)


> > Since Scott has been part of the process that produced this document, I
> > must assume that Scott thinks that this process will help him, in ways
that
> > the current "statements@ietf.org" mechanism cannot. Scott, can you
confirm
> > that?
>
> yes but
>
> yes - I think it would help to have this process
>
> but - there is one other thing that I think would help and that is to
> more clearly clearly define who is responsible at an orginizational
> level in the IETF to ensure an answer happens when an answer should
happen.
>
> during the IESG discussion on this general topic it was suggested that the
> person with organizational responsibility should be the person designated
> by the IAB as the liaison to the organization that sent a particular
> statement - this makes sense to me
>
> I did bring the idea up when we were developing this document but
> did not push it as much maybe I should have
>
> Scott
>
>