Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 22/10/2013 07:07, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> Delegating authority without responsibility is a bad idea.
> The question of "does an AD have too much responsibility"
> seems to be the underlying issue here.
> 
> It seems the main IESG areas of responsibility are:
>    1) Steer the IETF (e.g, approve BoFs, WG charters)
>    2) Manage all IETF working groups (e.g., deliver milestones)
>    3) Review all drafts for RFC publication
> 
> Why not have Area Managers as well as Area Directors? (split out (2))
> They would be responsible for getting WGs in the area
> to complete their milestones on time. (e.g, they have WG conflict
> resolution authority, not the ADs). The desired skill set focus for an AM
> would be
> management, not technology.

We mustn't forget that although ADs almost always attempt to steer
(or manage) by persuasion and reasoning, they do have two or three
ultimate weapons - the powers to replace WG chairs, to close WGs,
and to decline to advance a document. This is what makes it hard
to split 1) from 2), and makes it plausible to separate 3) from
1)+2), IMHO.

    Brian