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

[Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com]

Hi John,

The same argument could be used to state that the nomcom should 
pick only one AD in each area, and the second AD could be chosen 
by the nomcom-selected AD, but we haven't chosen to go that way.  
Why?

IMO, it would be a mistake to select our ADs that way, because 
each AD should be accountable directly to the community, not to
another AD.  I know that the nomcom isn't (by a long shot) a 
perfect selection mechanism, but it is the only means we have 
to select a person who is directly accountable to the community.
And, I think that our top-level positions should be.

If you are concerned about opening a new position, then there are
some alternatives in this case:  (1) The IESG could agree that one
of its current members will serve as the second General AD (like
the Sub-IP area was handled), (2) Harald could involve different
members of the existing leadership (IESG and/or IAB members) in
the activities in which we need continuity and/or more resources, (3)
Harald could prioritize his work and delegate his less critical
activities to other parties (give more work to the gen-dir, start
more teams like EDU, ask other ADs or IAB members to run certain
things, delegate tasks to folks outside the current management
structure, just stop doing some things, etc.).

Given that Harald may step down in a year though, I believe that
he does need to make a specific plan to achieve continuity
for any of his activities that are likely to span across that gap.

Would you find one of the other choices that I presented above
preferrable to opening another position?

Margaret


> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext
> John C Klensin
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 11:12 AM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: iab@ietf.org; gen-dir@alvestrand.no; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen] Thinking about adding a new person to the IESG
> 
> 
> 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
> >  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>