Re: leader statements

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

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