There at least two advantages of moving toward the three AD model rather than, e.g., re-splitting the area or thinking about other types of arrangements. One is that the Nomcom is already looking for nominees for an ART AD with a known job description and list of desirable characteristics. If they have a pool of candidates, picking two from the pool is, or should be, minimally disruptive. If, by contrast, we split the area, either back to Apps and Real-time or to separate IoT-like work from the rest of the Area, there would need be a new definition of the boundary (which would not necessarily be the same as last time), figuring out how many ADs each new Area gets, etc. The Nomcom would be left with zero candidates for ADs for the new positions and the ART position and candidate(s) would become irrelevant (and a proposed cutoff of Wednesday, which is already very late). The second is that moving to a different structure -- either a split into two areas or some other organizational arrangement (like a "secretary" with broader scope) would, I think inevitably, increase the load on Murray and Francesca at precisely the time when they are stretched thinner than we should reasonably expect of them. I have every confidence that they would try to make it work, but driving people crazy or making them feel that the AD role is just no fun any more should not be one of our goals for ADs. With the "third AD" plan, even if the IESG cannot make up its mind until the week of IETF, that at least should not blow up the Nomcom -- they could keep the possibility in mind and work internally toward first and second choices with one being dropped out if nothing happens. Even if the extra slot is just a possibility, getting candidates for vacant slots has historically been much easier than getting candidates to run again a first-term incumbent who is widely perceived (at least among those I've talked with) as having done a great job. And, if the IESG has already considered the three AD option, as I think they have, it should take them less time to figure out what should be done than if they were starting with a new idea (such as splitting the areas). So, pragmatically, while there might be a different answer in some alternate reality, the "third AD" model is the only thing I can imagine being feasible this year. best, john --On Monday, October 24, 2022 14:24 -0500 Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Or, we divide the area back into Real-time and APP area. > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:22 PM Claudio Allocchio > <Claudio.Allocchio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> +1 John... >> >> ART is so wide that also somebody just cannot be a total >> knowleadgeable expert on "everything"... I would go further >> that we may try to identify 3 sub-area groups and look for >> profiles who fit each group... >> >> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > --On Sunday, October 23, 2022 13:10 +0000 Francesca >> > Palombini >> > <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> You might have noticed I have been MIA the last 3 months - >> >> As some of you know, I have been taking some time off to >> >> welcome the birth of my first son Leonardo, who was born >> >> on July 29th. We both are well and have been enjoying this >> >> time getting to know each other. I am sharing a recent >> >> picture in attachment. >> >> >> >> I wanted to let you know that starting next week I am back >> >> at work at 50%, and that I plan to attend IETF 115 >> >> remotely. I know I have some catching up to do. If I have >> >> missed any important email during this period, please find >> >> me during the IETF week, or write me again in the next 2 >> >> weeks. >> > >> >> I also was surprised to see that no one else has accepted >> >> nomination for ART AD for the next term - please do think >> >> carefully and bring your name forward if you can, or >> >> nominate other people that you believe would do a good >> >> job: the NomCom needs a good pool of candidates to work >> >> its magic, and I am sure there is many of you who would do >> >> a great job for the IETF. I personally have accepted >> >> nomination but expect to have reduced available time and >> >> more parental leave coming next year (which I will discuss >> >> with the NomCom). I look forward to seeing more names - >> >> there is time until Wednesday - and please do reach out if >> >> there is anything you'd like to discuss about the AD role. >> > >> > With the understanding that this is horribly late in the >> > cycle of things, I'd like to make a suggestion: in addition >> > to Francesca's suggestion of the need for more candidates >> > for her ART AD slot, we add a third ART AD slot and add it >> > as close to Right Now as possible. By the numbers alone and >> > just dividing the number of WGs in the area by two, the ART >> > ADs are responsible for more WGs than ADs in any other >> > area. We added a third AD to Routing which today has >> > "only" 24 WGs for the three ADs; ART has 34 for two. In >> > addition, ART is probably the most diverse of the Areas in >> > terms of work it takes on. That was even the case before >> > we recombined Applications and Real-time (fwiw, it was even >> > the case when I was Apps AD nearly 30 years ago). That >> > diversity requires extra effort by the ADs and always has. >> > >> > I have been told that the IESG discussed the possibility of >> > a third ART AD in June or July and concluded it wasn't >> > necessary. I think there is now new data: In addition to >> > the WGs per AD numbers above, I've seen very considerable >> > traffic in the last few weeks in which the work and draft >> > specifications of one WG in the Area intersects that of >> > another. Conflicting specifications for doing the same >> > thing are bad news when they occur in different SDOs; they >> > are far worse when they occur, not only within the IETF but >> > within the same Area. Procedurally, having conflicting >> > versions of parts of specifications from different WGs and >> > having one go into IETF Last Call well ahead of the other >> > creates a situation for which our processes were not >> > designed. The solution to such problems is (and always has >> > been) active AD involvement, either to facilitate >> > discussions between the WGs involved or, if needed, to work >> > out guidelines about conditions for IETF Last Call. Murray >> > has, in my opinion, been doing a superhuman job under the >> > circumstances (including the added stresses and constraints >> > of hybrid meetings), but there are not two (much less >> > three) of him and the IETF has not yet devised >> > Murray-cloning technology. >> > >> > A third AD is the solution, even if the Nomcom were to not >> > return Francesca and leave Murray and the rest of the IESG >> > having to break in two IESG newcomers at the same time. >> > Again, from the numbers (assuming no increase after the >> > upcoming DISPATCH meeting), our choice (and the Nomcom's) >> > is between 1 1/2 active ADs for parts of next year (or at >> > least "reduced available time" for the one of them)l one >> > experienced AD and one newcomer (and the community has been >> > told several times that it takes a new AD many months to >> > really come up to speed) -- and hence a different version >> > of 1 1/2; or either two experienced ADs (even with one on >> > partial availability) and a new one or two ones (with, I >> > assume, Francesca, willing to help a bit from the >> > sidelines). Just numerically, that answer also seems clear. >> > Let's get more nominations for the slot (as Francisca >> > suggests) but then let's convince the IESG to create a >> > third ADs position (ideally on Thursday but certainly not >> > later than IETF 115) and then let the Nomcom fill two open >> > slots from those nominees, not just one. >> > >> > If necessary, treat this as an experiment and plan to >> > explicitly review in two years whether AET really needs >> > three ADs. Or, at the risk of making the Nomcom job a bit >> > more difficult, make the new slot a one-year appointment >> > and do the review next year. But let's do it rather than >> > leaving ourselves with an Area that almost certain to not >> > function as well as it could. >> > >> > thanks for at least considering this, >> > john >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > art mailing list >> > art@xxxxxxxx >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----------------- Claudio Allocchio G A R R >> Claudio.Allocchio@xxxxxxx >> Senior Manager and Advisor >> tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and >> G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; >> fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; >> A=garr; C=it; >> >> PGP Key: >> https://www.cert.garr.it/servizi/informazioni-su-pgp-ke >> ys >> >>
