FWIW - +1 to reducing load on the ART ADs. Three seems appropriate, if we can find reasonable candidates. Cheers, > On 25 Oct 2022, at 8:02 am, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >>> >>> > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
