--On Friday, 26 November, 2004 16:40 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the IESG's concern here is that they, rather than the > IAOC would like to designate who the executive director is. > > The executive director is very involved in making the IESG and > process functions run smoothly. > > It seems like significant friction would be created if the > executive director was not someone the IESG was comfortable > with. Sam, While I understand and sympathize with the concern you raise, the whole model so far --as developed much more by the IESG and IAB than by the community, so it presumably meets their needs -- is that we constitute an IASA and IAOC, and then let them run the details. If the IESG asserts the right to start appointing (and presumably firing) particular individuals, especially individuals who, under the current model, are contractors, we are down the slippery slope toward a level of IESG management of the administrative process that calls for a completely different model. It seems to me that it might be reasonable to expect the IAD to seek the advice, and maybe the consent, of the IESG on an Exec Dir appointment. But going much further than that requires a rather different model. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
