> There is an obvious question that at least for me drives the answer to > whther the IAD is the IETF Executive Director. > > As currently practiced / defined, is the IETF Executive Director a full > time job?
Scott Bradner could probably answer more definitively, but I believe our process documents and other RFCs refer to a role, not a job. Basically, there are a few times in which you need to "contact the IETF" and the words "IETF Executive Director" means "the full time staff shall ..." and "go find the person who has that title." (Barbara Fuller, as the lead person on the Foretec IETF Secretariat is our current Executive Director.) It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest exercise has been to move overall management responsibility for IETF admin. and support activities (IASA) from contractors to a "program manager", which is what this BCP is all about. As such, it seems that where documents refer to "IETF Executive Director" that should become (via a paragraph in this BCP) a pointer to the IAD or other appropriate position as further pointed to by the IAD. > > If it is a full time job, then clearly it should not be combined with the > IAD. THis implies that we will need budgeting to contract / hire this > person in addition to the IAD. So far, the contracting philosophy has been "one and only one" person as a full-timer. Everything else is a contract. If we're going to go 1++ (or designate a contractor as a named position), that probably needs to be worked out. My personal feeling: don't tie the hands of your iaoc/iad until they can start looking at contracts and how they might/should be let. > > Unless explicitly delegated with the consent of the IAOC, the IAD > > will also fill the role of the IETF Executive Director, as described > > in various IETF process BCPs. My own opinion (ymmv) is leave the text as is and strike the editorial note. Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
