Dave: >> The proposed update to BCP 101 permits further delegation of the IAOC voting >> position. While I do not see myself taking advantage of this new feature, I >> do think we should give future IETF Chairs this option. It is a cohesive >> part of the work that can be delegated. Some coordination between the IETF >> Chair and the delegate would be necessary, but the time commitment would be >> significantly less than participating in the IAOC and a subset of its >> committees. > > As SM noted, there is an important difference between delegation and > appointment. There also is a difference between having the choice made by > the head of the group, versus the entire group. > > Having the new person be delegated by the Chair makes that person an agent of > the chair and serve at their whim. It's been noted that this is probably the > least stable arrangement for continuity of participation. It's difficult to > imagine a person working on this basis and having a healthy ability to > participate and vote in the IAOC/Trust. > > Having the new person be appointed for a period of time and chosen by the > group (IAB or IESG) provides a stronger basis for their working independently > and with continuity. > > Can you clarify the reasons for the choices you made in the proposal?
It never occurred to me that the delegation would be made without the consent of the entire group. This was clarified in the current version of the document: ... The delegations by the IETF chair and the IAB chair need to be confirmed by the IESG and IAB respectively. The terms of delegation is for a longer term for instance aligned with the IESG and IAB appointment cycles (roughly anual). Russ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
