On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Brian> Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we > Brian> are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint > Brian> technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the > Brian> specific area. It's a practical matter. > > I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part > of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on > the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area > covered. In some cases, this was solved by splitting work load. In > some cases it was covered by having the AD learn a lot. In one case the > AD came in having huge gaps in half of the area in question. Today that > person is considered an expert in one of the areas where he had the > largest gaps and is focusing most of his effort there. > > I wouldn't want someone on the IESg without a strong technical presence > in the IETF. > It matters less to me whether it's in the area in question. > > And yes, I've thought about how I'd feel if someone jumped from another > area to security. I can think of a number of APS or RAI ADs who I think > could succeed in the security area if they decided to put in the effort > to learn on the job. It would be a huge investment in effort, but it > could succeed. > > IESG-level review of a document really is a skill that can be > learned. It helps to have a lot to draw on, but I don't believe anyone > can (or does) have coverage of all the areas they are reviewing. The > huge part of the skill is to figure out how to do the technical job even > given that. > It involves trusting others sometimes, reading discussions, learning new > things. Sometimes though, you do just have to spend the effort to > understand some particular issue well enough to make an informed > opinion. > > Having experts in areas doesn't escape this. When there's an appeal or a > disagreement between areas it can be important for ADs to come up to > speed on an issue outside their area and make an informed decision about > it. > > So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and > demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly > value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the > AD joins the IESG. [MB] I totally agree. That's one of the points I've been trying to make (in a far less succinct manner). [/MB] > > --Sam