[mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Troops versus superpower

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Alex Conta wrote:

> Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Robert Snively wrote:
> >>This third approach is also used by many SDOs. By maintaining
> >>absolute process supervision powers at a level equivalent to that of
> >>IESG, one could successfully disperse the technical review powers to
> >>a lower level (WG and below) during the development process and to a
> >>wide public during the superpower's process review period.
> >
> > I have been told by many IETF people who know better that IETF
> > does not have enough folks willing to do process management only,
> > without the technical work.  Thus, I stopped advocating and
> > noticing this option; I assume it is impossible given existing
> > resources.
>
> But a separation of process management from technical work, in case
> of N WGs in IETF, will allow X to chair WG A, and do technical work
> in as many WGs as X wants except A, which is N-1 WGs.

True, but does not help on an IESG level where N equals 1.

> So I do not see why you stopped?  Individual X can do both process
> management and technical work.

You are ignoring the IESG-level context of this discussion, which is
very important. Robert said "at a level equivalent to that of IESG". I
responded that, at that level, we will lack manager-only volunteers.
There is no 3rd option in an IESG-level context. Robert then said that
we can hire those managers.

At the WG level, many manager-only volunteers exist. If we believe in
IESG as superpower, IESG should control those volunteers and we should
relax, submit improvement comments, and vote. If we do not, we should
move current IESG powers to WGs, eliminating the IESG overload problem
and creating other, different problems. In either case, WG Chair
authority seems like a non-issue (for different reasons).

Alex.

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr