[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee

[John Curran]

On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Fundamentally, I think this is my problem.  The claim is that this is
> so completely unimportant that nobody should be worried about the
> constitution of the committee.  Ok, in that case, why have a committee
> at all?

Andrew - 
 
  A typical example: the 1net web site was just relaunched to address
  some glaring weaknesses and confusion information on the prior site.
  While a number of us suggested changes, ultimately the decision to 
  proceed (including moving the mailing list, etc) had to be made by
  Adiel, as the acting coordinator.
 
  I would claim that it would be best if such decisions were made by 
  a larger group of interested folks, but still a group smaller than 
  the entire list.  A 1net coordinating committee would suffice for 
  that purpose, and I can think of several other similar in nature.
  For sake of comparison, a 1net coordinating committee might be
  viewed as 1net's "IESG"; i.e. not a body responsible for doing the
  work, but a body responsible for coordination and administrative 
  support of the work that will be done by all of us.

> Anyway, I'll shut up now.  If other people want to organize themselves
> into a committee, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way.  I just
> wish to be clear that no such committee represents me, in any of my
> various community roles.

  The representation aspect is part of the process of seating people;
  it does not mean that the 1net coordinating committee speaks for the
  1net participants (any more than the IESG speaking for the entirety
  of the IETF participants)

  Does this help clarify the need?

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone. Warning: my comparison to the IESG may be
            dated, as my time serving on it was nearly 20 years ago...