John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> (1) The time and resource commitment required of ADs is largely, but
> not entirely, of the IESG's own making. People get selected who have
> the time and resources and the job and/or perception of things for
> which IESG members need to take personal responsibility tend to expand
> to more than fill the available time. I've given the opinion to a
> number of Nomcoms that the problem will just get worse unless they
> select people who see that expansion of the role as a problem and have
> plans for how to fix it (or at least a good-faith intent to support
> such plans). My impression is that it hasn't ranked high in Nomcom
> priorities so, if it is important to others, more people need to say
Perhaps some people who feel this way ought to write an open letter saying
so.
> (2) The Nomcom doesn't have a lot of control in this space. The number
> of ADs per area is set by the IESG, not the Nomcom, and the Nomcom has
> little choice other that to try to fill the positions (there have been
> debates over the years as to whether a Nomcom could actually refuse to
> fill a position but certainly it should not consider trying except in
> the most dire of circumstances). ADs have tremendous flexibility about
sadly, 3777 doesn't provide a way for the nomcom to "fail"
> enough, we could tell Nomcoms to start firing (or refusing to appoint)
> ADs who don't show good management and delegation skills but, if we did
> that any they listened, they might have to prioritize management skills
> over technical skills and understanding and it is possible that
> wouldn't work out well (and would give us even more professional
And don't forget that the confirming body has to agree.
So, if you want to fix IESG problems, you have to pick IAB people who
agree that there is a problem.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
Attachment:
pgpPLjL5uysgE.pgp
Description: PGP signature