Re: Last Call: <draft-secretaries-good-practices-06.txt> (IETF Working Groups' Secretaries) to Best Current Practice

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 08/12/2014 10:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 12:22 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>>> So it should be possible to reach agreement on text changes that
>>>> would take this tone out of your reading.
>>> I actually do not think that it should be published at all, as
>>> I don't think it solves any problem that the IETF is currently
>>> experiencing and I tend to think that it might lead to further
>>> ossification of the organization.  That is to say, I think
>>> that the cost/benefit balance does not work out in favor of
>>> publication.
>> i agree.  i will not add a bunch of sarcastic analogies about
>> more bureaucratic bumph we just don't need.
>>
>> i also agree with your suspicion that this is an attept to patch
>> a chairing problem.  one suspects possible iesg unwillingness to
>> bite bullets.
>>
> I agree.  The list of tasks assigned in this draft to the secretary should be done by the w.g. chairs.  If they can't do these tasks, then they shouldn't be chairs.

OLD:

  Section 3  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07#section-3>  has listed the typical functions and responsibilities of WG
    Secretaries.

NEW:

  Section 3  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-secretaries-good-practices-07#section-3>  has listed the functions and responsibilities of WG Chairs.


If not, what's left for the chairs? Just a title?
Exactly like having 3 WG chairs leads to dilution of responsibility, I fear that that same dilution of responsibility will apply here. At least with the way it's specified in this document, i.e, like a formal role.
Maybe it boils down to the fact that I have not seen a successful secretary in action.

+1 to no publishing this document.

Regards, Benoit

>
> Bob
>