[rfc-i] Discussion about Committees and RSE models
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Jan 17 17:32:43 PST 2011
In case anything I've written could be misinterpreted, my view
is that well-chosen and well-chaired committees are good vehicles
for sorting through issues, reaching decisions, providing guidance,
and reviewing performance.
However, committees, in general, are less successful at *executing
and following through* on decisions. That's why company boards
appoint CEOs, why the IASA appoints an IAD, etc.
On 2011-01-18 14:06, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I have read several comments on RSE model stating that committees can do anything right, make bad decisions, can't be trusted, and are guaranteed to not have the required expertise.
> I am confused by this in the IETF context as everything is done by committees. Working groups are committees, the IESG is a committee, the IAB is a committee, the IAOC is a committee, the Nomcom is a committee, the ISOC board of trustees is a committee, directorates are committees, etc. I don't claim that any of this is perfect, but I am confused by the statements that committees relating to the RSE model won't work, when they appear to work in other areas of the IETF.
> I understand why a committee needs to have the right expertise to work, but I don't understand the unsubstantiated claim that they are bound to fail. If we don't put the right set of people on the committee it will fail, but that also true for hiring an RSE. If we don't hire the right person with the right capabilities, then that won't work either. But that's not a reason to not hire an RSE.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest