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

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

Someone else suggested “subject to the recall procedures”; I second that. Consider, if you will, what the process for removing a document author would actually be? I think it would, perhaps, be an appeal, not a recall.

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 1:02 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
>