Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Trying to wrap the ExDir discussion: The IETF process documents have been written with the assumption in a few places that there exists an IETF Executive Director, and that IETF process documents can assign tasks to that person. The things that the process documents mention explicitly are far less than a full time job; the job that the current Executive Director (Barbara) is doing is clearly more than a full time job. In the new model, there is no neat box marked IETF Executive Director. Part of what Barbara's doing goes to the IAD (primary interface with IESG/IAB to figure out what requirements are), part go with the contractor that does the clerk contract (managing the support staff), and part seems to have no natural home. I think that we should stick the BCP at the abstraction level (who makes the decision), and not at the assignment level (who does the job). But I think that the IESG is not the best body to assign those tasks (its role is intended to be mostly technical, not administrative), and I think it's not certain they all go to one place. So I would say: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. Does that make sense to people? Harald --On 26. november 2004 13:43 -0500 scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bert further asks: The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). Does the IETF community can agree with that? I agree that the IAD and the IETF ED are different functions and agree with the new paragraph Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Harald suggests: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. makes sense to me (I would remove the word other on the 3rd line though) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
seems reasonable to me as well. including the recommended change. a. On 29 nov 2004, at 15.07, scott bradner wrote: Harald suggests: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. makes sense to me (I would remove the word other on the 3rd line though) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Sounds good to me. Bert -Original Message- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 14:35 To: scott bradner; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director Trying to wrap the ExDir discussion: The IETF process documents have been written with the assumption in a few places that there exists an IETF Executive Director, and that IETF process documents can assign tasks to that person. The things that the process documents mention explicitly are far less than a full time job; the job that the current Executive Director (Barbara) is doing is clearly more than a full time job. In the new model, there is no neat box marked IETF Executive Director. Part of what Barbara's doing goes to the IAD (primary interface with IESG/IAB to figure out what requirements are), part go with the contractor that does the clerk contract (managing the support staff), and part seems to have no natural home. I think that we should stick the BCP at the abstraction level (who makes the decision), and not at the assignment level (who does the job). But I think that the IESG is not the best body to assign those tasks (its role is intended to be mostly technical, not administrative), and I think it's not certain they all go to one place. So I would say: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. Does that make sense to people? Harald --On 26. november 2004 13:43 -0500 scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bert further asks: The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). Does the IETF community can agree with that? I agree that the IAD and the IETF ED are different functions and agree with the new paragraph Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
--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
AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
In draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt it states at the end of sect 3.1: 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. We currently have (in our working version of the IASA BCP): Editors' note: The preceding paragraph has generated some comments, given that the role of the IETF Executive director is mentioned in a number of documents, some of which are fairly old and dusty. The editors actively solicit feedback on whether this paragraph is ok as it stands. We had some discussion in the IESG about this (because the IETF Executive Director also interacts with the IESG basically on a daily basis). I believe that in the IESG our current thinking is that better text would be: The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). Does the IETF community can agree with that? Bert ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
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? 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. On the other hand, if this is not a full time job, it seems to make more sense to combine it with the IAD because there is a very large overlap in required knowledge. For example, If the IESG decides in their meeting to ask that the infrastructure group do something, the Exectuive director will know that immediately, and have the context of the discussion. If the IAD is a separate person, he will need a clear description of what needs to be done, and need to make sure the work is tracked properly in managing the contract with the infastructure provider. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 10:27 AM 11/26/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: In draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt it states at the end of sect 3.1: 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. We currently have (in our working version of the IASA BCP): Editors' note: The preceding paragraph has generated some comments, given that the role of the IETF Executive director is mentioned in a number of documents, some of which are fairly old and dusty. The editors actively solicit feedback on whether this paragraph is ok as it stands. We had some discussion in the IESG about this (because the IETF Executive Director also interacts with the IESG basically on a daily basis). I believe that in the IESG our current thinking is that better text would be: The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). Does the IETF community can agree with that? Bert ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Bert further asks: The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). Does the IETF community can agree with that? I agree that the IAD and the IETF ED are different functions and agree with the new paragraph Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
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
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Scott Bradner could probably answer more definitively, but I believe our process documents and other RFCs refer to a role, not a job. agree My own opinion (ymmv) is leave the text as is and strike the editorial disagree - I'd just strike the text as well - as you said - why tie hands Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Carl == Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Carl It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest Carl exercise has been to move overall management responsibility Carl for IETF admin. and support activities (IASA) from Carl contractors to a program manager, which is what this BCP Carl is all about. As such, it seems that where documents refer Carl to IETF Executive Director that should become (via a Carl paragraph in this BCP) a pointer to the IAD or other Carl appropriate position as further pointed to by the IAD. 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. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
This is a quite understandable goal. But I am not sure that as stated it can be met. Let us assume that some of the activities that the IAD is responsible for contracting includes the Executive Director function. (I have difficulty seeing it as a separate contract on its own.) It is the IAD's job to award that contract. One would hope that the IESG had review over the person who they had to work with that closely. But such review is VERY different from getting to choose the person. Just my reading of the documents, Joel M. Halpern At 04:40 PM 11/26/2004, Sam Hartman wrote: Carl == Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Carl It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest Carl exercise has been to move overall management responsibility Carl for IETF admin. and support activities (IASA) from Carl contractors to a program manager, which is what this BCP Carl is all about. As such, it seems that where documents refer Carl to IETF Executive Director that should become (via a Carl paragraph in this BCP) a pointer to the IAD or other Carl appropriate position as further pointed to by the IAD. 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. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
That seems simple enough when put that way ... then leave the executive director totally out of this BCP or specify that the IESG names that person. No need to pussy-foot around the issue. :) Carl Carl == Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Carl It seems to me that one of the goals of the whole AdminRest Carl exercise has been to move overall management responsibility Carl for IETF admin. and support activities (IASA) from Carl contractors to a program manager, which is what this BCP Carl is all about. As such, it seems that where documents refer Carl to IETF Executive Director that should become (via a Carl paragraph in this BCP) a pointer to the IAD or other Carl appropriate position as further pointed to by the IAD. 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. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
