At 07:37 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com
wrote:
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.
I don't believe that the same argument applies at all. As John
indicated,
" the problem is usually partially resolved by splitting up
WGs and then trying to ignore each other."
This approach is not an option for this position, particularly
if the
intention is for a Vice-Chair role that works to the Chair. If
the nomcom
selects an individual that is unable to function effectively
with the chair then the position will end up generating more
work, not
distributing the current workload over more folk.
Would you find one of the other choices that I presented above
preferrable to opening another position?
Lets see....
(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),
Harald stated:
"The load imposed by process issues is very high at the
moment, and
is likely to stay there for some time"
Accordingly this option does not appear to address the issue
(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,
Delegation without authority is always going to be a problem.
These forms of informal involvement often turn out to be
more channels for advice rather than effective delegation of
function, and the workload remains unaltered..
(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.).
About the only thing I see here that could work is
"delegate tasks to folks outside the current management
structure"
which could be interpreted as being the same as John saying:...
"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. "
Geoff