On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mary: > > On 3/4/13 6:51 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: > >> [MB] I don't think anyone has said an AD could be a manager with >> little technical clue. I think Sam said it extremely well in his >> email. What some of us have been proposing is that someone with >> proven technical skills in another area that also is good at managing >> projects/people could do a reasonable job. From what I have seen this >> has certainly been the case in other areas - i.e., ADs that don't have >> depth of knowledge in all the WGs in their areas, but are strong >> technical individuals in other areas. >> > > I am very sorry to have to say this, but we are all dancing around the > issue that we have experience of where the above has been shown to > simply not work well. And this is why it is important for a NOMCOM that > gets into such a situation to do exactly what this NOMCOM did: consult > with the IESG to determine the need to "have a body" versus have the > right person. > [MB] I mentioned in another email that yes, indeed, we do have experience where appointing someone that didn't have the depth of knowledge did not work well. But, as I said in my email, I don't so much think it was because the filling of the position with an individual so much as it was the fact that there is no way for a Nomcom to anticipate how an individual will actually behave once they are appointed. We've had some exceptionally talented technical people that have been appointed AD that haven't performed nearly as well as one might anticipate. Since, this is also the exact same situation faced by the Nomcom that I chaired and the issue was actually highlighted in my Nomcom report: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt It's not clear to me that the IESG every seriously considered the problem nor put a plan in place to avoid it in the future. I don't think anyone was surprised when Wes didn't re-up that it was going to be extremely difficult to find the right replacement. [/MB] > >> The problem seems to be that >> folks value the technical expertise far more than they do project and >> people management skills. The end result is that there are some >> really strong technical people in leadership roles that have little >> ability to manage things well and very poor people interaction skills. >> The latter is certainly a very negative personality trait when it >> comes to motivating and managing volunteers. [/MB] > > That happens from time to time, let's agree. And maybe it is the price > we pay for the model we have. And maybe that's a trade-off worth > having. This is not to say that the IESG shouldn't evolve its working > methods, by the way. But it is possible to get it wrong. > > Eliot