Re: leader statements

[manning bill <[e-mail]>]

the "leaders" are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where possible, indicate
that consensus has been reached (or not).    when "leaders" speak out on behalf of organization
-particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of the group at large,
they have exceeded their remit.  

glossing over  or ignoring conflicting opinions simply because it does not reflect the "leader" bias
is demonstrable - often to serious harm to an otherwise worthy effort.    Chairs should _NOT_  
presume to speak for an organization without consultation.   

Concerns about "being in the room" reflect a serious insecurity in the type and quality of work that
we are supposed to be producing. 

/bill


On 9October2013Wednesday, at 13:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> ...
>> What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the
>> chairs acting in that sort of "leader of organization" role.  If we do
>> accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will
>> happen without consultation.  For a CEO is not going to agree to issue
>> a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents
>> of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public).  If we do
>> not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings
>> where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have
>> instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity.
> 
> I've been there in the past, as IAB Chair, ISOC Board Chairman, and IETF Chair.
> 
> Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions,
> to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance,
> or we will have no voice on those occasions.
> 
> If there was a pattern of I* chairs subscribing to statements that the
> relevant community clearly found quite outrageous, there might be an
> argument for having no voice.
> 
> I suggest that there is no such pattern. There may be quibbles over
> wording sometimes, but that is inevitable when several different
> stakeholder organisations have to agree on wording. The wording is
> inevitably a compromise; it can't be otherwise.
> 
> It's perfectly reasonable to ask our chairs to invite debate in
> advance when that is possible; but in many of these cases, it
> simply isn't. It's also perfectly reasonable that people should comment
> on the wording even after it's set in stone; that helps us to do better
> next time.
> 
> If we nominate good candidates for our leadership positions, and send
> thoughtful comments to the NomCom (and the IESG and IAB for their
> nominating duties), we won't get leaders who put their names to
> anything outrageous.
> 
> We should trust our chairs to act as figureheads and leaders towards
> the outside world.
> 
>   Brian Carpenter
>