Re: [Gen] Thinking about adding a new person to the IESG

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

Harald,

Just a couple of thoughts...

(1) When we have two ADs in an area who don't work together
well, the problem is usually partially resolved by splitting up
WGs and then trying to ignore each other.  It doesn't stop it
from being a problem, as many of the cross-calibration and
cross-coverage advantages of two AD areas (versus completely
separate areas) are lost.  If the person in this function and
the Chair don't work _really_ well together, it could be a
disaster, especially if the "General Area" was down to zero WGs
and it was clear to everyone that this person was deputy chair.
I suspect that problem can be avoided by a very careful
conversation with the Nomcom the first time but, after that, if
the position is to exist, I think we need to think about another
selection mechanism to avoid problems.  One such selection
mechanism is that the IETF (IESG?) Chair actually selects this
person, subject to the advice and consent of the Nomcom and with
term at the IETF Chair's pleasure.   Of course, that would
eliminate the advantages of staggered terms, but you see where
I'm going here.  

Obviously, if we intend this to evolve into "Chair-Elect", we
would need a different selection model.  But "Chair Elect"
suggests that it could take at least four years for the Nomcom
to solve a problem, not the current minimum of two.

(2) There have been, from time to time, serious gaps in
communications between the IETF Chair and IAB Chair, especially
when the former starts feeling a lot of time pressure over
particular situations and concludes (explicitly or not) that
temporarily taking on an imperial role is desirable.   To some
extent, reducing the workload on the IETF Chair may reduce this
problem, but the new position would also give him or her someone
else to talk with.   How do you see preventing the IESG-IAB
communications disconnects becoming worse with this setup, or do
we just have to rely on the good will and attention to detail(s)
of the people involved?

     john


--On Friday, October 31, 2003 23:21 -0800 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> The IESG is considering asking Nomcom to fill an extra
> position, provisionally titled "General AD". No decision has
> been taken yet, but we'd like to hear comments from the IAB
> and the gen-dir before going further with this.
> 
> The reasoning behind creating this position is the following:
> 
> - There are a number of activities going on that the IETF
> Chair feels responsible for. Some of them, but far from all,
> involve the General area and the procedure updates. Others
> include a lot of inter-function relationship management, and
> keeping track of IETF-wide topics and issues that cannot be
> solved within a single area. - There are a significant number
> of those things that has a significant amount of context which
> is not shared with the rest of the IESG. The IAB chair shares
> quite a lot of the context, but does not have the same areas
> of responsibility. - The load imposed by process issues is
> very high at the moment, and is likely to stay there for some
> time - but should eventually decrease to a more reasonable
> level. (All three current GEN WGs are likely to shut down soon
> - others might be created, though) - The way the IESG works is
> likely to have to change anyway, for other reasons, so adding
> more people to the IESG might not be so much of a long-term
> problem that I've thought it would be before.
> 
> There are two kinds of roles we could think of adding to the
> IESG in order to help this situation: - A "General AD", who
> has a normal AD function, with responsibility for the General
> area - An "Assistant IETF Chair", who functions as part of the
> Chair role, is expected to be part of all lists and groups
> where the Chair is an "ex-officio" member, and shares context
> about current IETF activities that the Chair is dealing with.
> 
> The first one is clearly something the IESG can "just decide".
> The second is a new role, which needs some careful thinking
> before we decide to implement it (or not), and it is necessary
> to discuss this with the community before making a decision.
> 
> Considering all this, I suggest that we can ask the Nomcom for
> an AD to fill the position of "General AD", with the
> understanding that this person would also assist and consult
> with the Chair in following up IETF-wide issues and cross-area
> issues, and that if the community thinks this is a good idea,
> the person's role could be changed to "Assistant IETF Chair"
> at a later time.
> 
> (Note: This role is NOT saying anything about who the next
> chair should be. Both the idea of an assistant chair that is
> promoted to chair and the idea of an assistant chair who
> smooths the transition to the next chair are entirely
> reasonable scenarios.)
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-dir mailing list
> Gen-dir@alvestrand.no
> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/gen-dir
>