Re: What is a "management position? [Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05.txt> (IETF Anti-Harassment Procedures) to Best Current Practice]

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/16/2015 12:33 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Without diving into definitions in BCPs (translation: "I have not read
> your document lately but I do have an opinion"), I wouldn't consider a
> WG Secretary to be a "management position".  Unless I'm mistaken, that
> role involves recording and tracking the progress of things, without
> actually having the power to make decisions or approve things.  That
> authority rests ultimately with the WG Chairs; those I do consider to be
> (lowest-level) management roles.


There's an essential distinction worth making a clear choice about.

Some positions have formally-imparted authority.  Others might have
little or no formal authority, but have quite a bit of actual leverage
in practice.

ADs and Chairs and IAOC folk are examples of what would typically be
called 'management'.

Formally, document writers (authors and editors) and note-takers
(secretaries, scribes, etc.) have no authority.  Everything they do is
at the will of chairs and the wg.  In practice, of course, they can be
enormously influence, swaying the substance of content.

Calling such folk "management' is a bit awkward, however, since their
roles are not usually described that way in the rest of the world.

Perhaps the language should, instead refer to anyone with an explicitly
assigned role?

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net