[mpowr] Re: [Solutions] Further work on WG (chair) roles - MPOWR WG proposal

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 12/12/03 at 1:59 PM -0800, James Kempf wrote:

>>I thought I heard a good deal of comment that shifting some 
>>*responsibility* to the chairs was a good idea. On the other hand, 
>>I agree: I certainly heard no consensus about shifting *authority*.
>
>This is a recipe for driving people away. If you give someone the 
>responsibility to do something, they better have the authority to 
>accomplish the task. Otherwise, who would take the job?

Someone else mentioned in private mail that they read it the way you 
did. Let me clarify, as that isn't what I meant.

I thought I heard at the plenary many people who thought it was a 
good idea to give certain responsibilities to the chairs:

- Making sure enough technical reviews are done before docs go to the IESG
- Doing a technical writeup of their own
- Tracking Last Call and IESG discuss issues and collecting WG responses

I thought I heard at the plenary many people who thought that giving 
chairs "the authority to say no" was a really bad idea.

A chair does not need the authority to say no in order to get 
technical reviews assigned, do a technical writeup, or track 
outstanding issues. They already have full authority to accomplish 
those tasks.

All that I'm saying is that any AD today *can* ask a chair to do 
these things, and I think that they should. We don't need a WG to 
make that happen.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

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