Re: An oversight function - composition thereof?

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

--On 16. september 2004 14:32 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 
wrote:

>>  ... The IAB
>> (and its Chair) are in considerably better shape on this than
>> the IESG (and the IETF Chair), since the IAB has not direct
>> standards-setting responsibility.  But the turf is pretty
>> dangerous and, ultimately, the IETF's collective reputation for
>> balance and impartiality is one of our most important assets.
>
> Yes, and we should certainly adjust the balance of the committee, or
> Board, or whatever it is, to reflect this concern.

The crucial point for me is that if things don't work for the people who do 
the work, the oversight function learns of it quickly, and can take action 
- and vice versa; if the oversight function decides that something needs to 
change, someone with as much insight as possible in the impact on the 
standards process should be there to discuss it.

I think this is reasonably well served by having the IESG representative be 
a non-voting liaison - the wide communications path is the part I think is 
critical. Having the group make decisions without direct IESG 
involvement.... leaves me feeing that we are making a suboptimal design.

                       Harald





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf