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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, December 03, 2014 05:52 -0900 Melinda Shore
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'd like to echo what John said.  I'm somewhat concerned that
> the growth of the wg secretary role has something to do with
> an inability (or unwillingness) to deal directly with poor
> chair performance.  Individual chairs may prefer to have the
> assistance but I am truly sorry to see this becoming typical
> working group practice.  "All problems can be solved by
> introducing a layer of indirection" may be a slightly
> entertaining joke about programming practice but it seems a
> woeful approach to organizational problems.

Melinda, 

Well put and thanks for getting to the core of the problem.   I
actually like having WG Secretaries for a few reasons that are
separate from the above (and largely separate from the
discussion in the document).  Used well, under the right
circumstances, and with appropriate care, the WG Secretary role
may be a good leadership development activity -- under some
circumstances, far more appropriate than appointing a junior or
inexperienced person as a co-chair who really shouldn't be
considered accountable for WG performance. 

For those who like structure and titles, perhaps we should
formally create an "Assistant Chair" or "Apprentice Chair" role,
give it a fancy title that would look good on CVs and to
corporate folks working on travel budgets, and downplay
"Secretary".  I hope I'm joking.

But, again, use of "WG Secretary" for leadership development is
an argument for flexibility with the title and role, not a
document that appears to suggest that all good WGs should have
secretaries and that good secretaries should do some particular
list of things.

That is the last from me on this topic, especially since the
tracker says "(Has enough positions to pass.)".   If true, that
leaves the appeals process (on the grounds that these issues
have been raised before, going back at least to August, and
never seriously addressed) and/or a discussion with the Nomcom
(on the grounds that the IESG is exercising bad judgment by
regularly putting these "more rules and more structure"
proposals in front of the community and the Nomcom is the only
realistic remedy for collective IESG bad judgment).

   john