Re: Thinking about adding a new person to the IESG

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

Harald,

I support the idea of a General Area AD if the desire is to have a dedicated
person to oversee the current work in this area which is pretty large at the
moment.

However, if the intent is to rather have an "vice Chair/IETF-Chair-trainee",
then I think more thought is required. In particular, given the current
Nomcom process and the way the IESG operates (as much as I understand of
that), I think it would be difficult to fit such a position in without more
discussion and agreement about the role and how it is chosen.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: <iab@ietf.org>; <gen-dir@alvestrand.no>
Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:21 PM
Subject: Thinking about adding a new person to the IESG


> 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?
>
>
>
>