--On Friday, September 29, 2023 03:18 +0100 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 29/09/2023 03:00, John C Klensin wrote: >> all while managing a 1-year-old). With all due respect to >> her and her superhuman powers, I don't think that is a >> reasonable combination of expectations. > > FWIW, I don't find the above a reasonable comment as it > makes assumptions as to people's capabilities and their > circumstances that aren't warranted, and even worse it > seems to assume that all people in certain circumstances > have the same capabilities. > > If there are specific issues with the ADs involved, then > please call those out, but meanwhile I'll totally discount > anything that seems along the lines of "you can't do the > job because of kids." Stephen, Given how your read it, that is fair. But it was not what I intended because I consider dumping the rest of the list on one person, especially one who is still, AFAIK, at 50% and doing catch-up (that is objectively true no matter what the reasons) to be unreasonable. Those numbered points were also not "assumptions as to people's capabilities and their circumstances": Her reduced availability over much of the last year is a matter of record and that some of her WGs are behind where they probably ought to be is too. My personal opinion is that she has done a great job of keeping up (more than we had any right to expect) and that Murray has done an outstanding job of holding things together. As a result, I would, and have, described both of them as "superhuman" in various contexts and intend that as a rather high complement and expression of my amazement. It also leads me to believe that the Nomcom made exactly the right decision in returning her last March. That is, of course, personal opinion and you may disagree but the fact remains that those WGs were behind where we (including their charters) predicted they would have been when she returned at 50% time in, IIR, July and that they are still not caught up. And none of that has anything to do with the kid except insofar as adding that in makes me even more amazed by Francesca's demonstrated capabilities. Where it does lead is to what I think is a variation on Mike's comments: Last year, the Nomcom made a decision, based on whatever information it had, including evaluation of work done in the prior 18 months or so, and its assessment of what what going on, to return Francesca to another two-year term as ART AD. For whatever my opinion is worth (probably very little, but...), they got it right. If the new area is created and she applies for the position (or either a one or two year term -- a slightly separate issue), then it would be up to the Nomcom to make a decision, based on whatever information they have available including, if they agree, what I believe is would be a significantly increased workload. If they were to say "yes" and appoint her, leaving a vacancy in ART, I'd be supportive of that decision. But that evaluation, based on the job description and my four-point list (without the parenthetical remarks and presumably with more no consideration of other demands on her time than they would give any other AD candidate with a different set of demands) is different from the evaluation a different Nomcom performed almost a year ago. And, fwiw, if there were clear community consensus that this particular rearrangement of ADs and Areas was a good idea, I wouldn't be investing the time to worry about this. But, while I can accept that IESG's determination of rough consensus on the topic, enough apparently legitimate concerns have been made about the reorganization itself to predict a less than completely smooth and seamless transition, thereby adding to the concerns about moving ADs around. best, john
