Re: [arch-d] Reducing IAB admin things (was: Re: Program issues)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, I should've said there: that concept of "reducing
IAB admin things" wasn't discussed by the IAB before Mirja
sent out that note. That mail was just me trying to see if
people thought it worth looking into. IOW, there's not a
big secret plan anywhere here, just a few bits of tidying
up, improving etc in the refactoring programmes stuff. But
if that shows the way to do something better as we go, then
that'd be good I guess.

Cheers,
S.

On 15/11/2020 22:44, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 15/11/2020 22:05, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> Given these inherent problems, I would agree that the IAB needs to 
>> minimize
>> that part of its efforts.  The best way to ensure that this happens is 
>> for
>> the IAB's administrative programs to be examined one by one, with an 
>> eye to
>> removing them from the IAB's charter.
> 
> I think that's a credible proposition to explore. Be v.
> interested were it to be raised at the plenary and/or
> discussed more on some list. (I guess arch-d - even the
> name of which seems ironic for this topic;-)
> 
> Two inputs to that:
> 
> - In my last 2 years on the IAB and in interacting with
> IAB folks whilst on the IESG and otherwise, I have many
> times heard people bemoaning that the A in IAB was more
> for Admin than Architecture. I honestly can't think of a
> time when any IAB member wanted more of that. (But if
> they did, I'd probably have assumed they were joking and
> forgotten:-) So some of this could well be pushing at a
> very open door.
> 
> - The hard part may be to find someone else to do stuff
> and to get agreement on that. The IESG already do too much.
> Some of these things do involve other bodies (e.g. other
> SDOs) where explaining change to 'em might be tricky. And
> lastly, and most tricky: it might take way more effort to
> agree a new setup than to just muck along with the current
> one, and that effort mightn't be worth the gain. (*) I'm not
> sure about that TBH and it may vary from topic to topic,
> but it'd be worth considering costs/benefits before trying
> to make too much change maybe.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> (*) As one example, the IAB being the IETF's "department
> of foreign affairs" for liaisons has never made sense to
> me personally, but almost all the liaison oversight stuff
> the IAB does takes almost no time as the real action is
> handled by ADs or WG chairs or by volunteers who happen to
> be active in both bodies. And for some foreign bodies,
> explaining to them that we're changing our end of that
> bureaucracy may require a pile of unrewarding work. So that
> may well be one better left as-is rather than risk creating
> a new can of openable worms maybe;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>