On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:36 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In my experience, Joe’s more accurate than Spencer.
Joe's point is, I think, orthogonal to mine. And I don't disagree with Joe, or with Rich.
Re: who's on the IESG - I know who I served on the IESG with, and who our sponsors were (that's at https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/members/ for the current crew), and I'm pretty sure I know why we were available to serve as ADs.
Working to expand the number of people who can be considered for Nomcom-reviewed slots is a fine conversation to have, and the community may be due for it.
But my point was intended to be - once any given IESG slate is confirmed, the community doesn't work for the IESG, although we cooperate with individual area directors and with the IESG as a whole in our work.
The community is able to share thoughts about ADs who think they can argue from a position of authority through the entire appeals chain, and then through the Nomcom process, including recalls.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Best,
Spencer
