--On Monday, 09 May, 2005 22:21 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All excellent points. I would add that the process should
> start from the potential new chair "resource" at least being
> (a) known to IETF management so that he can even be
> considered and (b) the resource getting experience in IETF
> work.
>
> I recall Brian's list of desirable chair characteristics.
> I recall that we have had threads about how successful
> our review attempts have been. We all called for cross-area
> review and high expertise*. I know that when I appoint
> editors or secretaries as a chair I go for the best persons
> I can find -- even if they are already doing a lot**.
>
> Looks like we are always going to the same pool. No
> wonder our re-org and review team attempts sometimes
> fail. Those people are already doing all they can. Creating
> new forums for them will not increase the amount of time
> in a day.
>
> We need to start recruiting new people. There's been
> excellent work recently in the training side -- but we also
> need to pick those people as editors, secretaries, co-chairs
> of a more experienced chair, pick random WG members as
> reviewers etc. Of course we are already doing it, but we
> need to do more of it. Otherwise the pool does not increase.
I would add one more element to Jari's otherwise excellent
comments. Part of the way to solve the problem is for those of
us with more experience (at least in years) to start pushing
back, aggressively, on "why don't you take on X" requests. We
should not be saying "no" but "find someone new as Chair and
I'll be a one-on-one support and training resource" or "find
someone new as editor and I'll agree to review every draft and
revision". Personally, I've been trying to do approximately
that during the last few years. My boundary is that I will
chair one-time and controversial BOFs when ADs twist my arm hard
enough, but don't ever expect to be willing to chair or co-chair
a WG again). But perhaps it is time to make personal policies
or guidelines like that a little more explicit.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf