[rfc-i] draft-iab-ise-model-03 comments

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Fri Oct 28 10:03:59 PDT 2011


Hi,

On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10/27/2011 8:12 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc at dcrocker.net
>> <mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net>> wrote:
>>    To give the IAB this flexibility is to then require that when the IAB use it
>>    they suddenly develop special skills at assessing the likely success of this
>>    unusual form of management.  (Companies do, sometimes, have co-presidents or
>>    the like but it's rare that it works all that well.)
>> 
>> For what it's worth, I disagree.  At least one team volunteered in the past for
>> this role and I personally believe that a team could work.
> 
> Perhaps you missed the parenthetical bit I included that indeed it is sometimes done.  My meaning was that it /can/ work.  But the problem is that it usually doesn't.
> 
> The question is risk/benefit.  It's a risky choice.  Where is the major benefit that we need?  Why should the IETF take it?

My preference is to keep it as an individual.  We have an individual now and that is working well.  The running code so to speak.  I think it works best to have the responsibility reside in a single person, they can have a team below them if needed.

For comparison we are in the process of hiring an RSE, not a team of people to be the RSE.  If it's OK for an individual to be the RSE, then it't appropriate for an individual to be the ISE.  The extra flexibility isn't needed.

Bob





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list