--On Thursday, October 17, 2013 20:36 +0100 Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > But don't see the "job requirements" put out by NomCom as the > IESG placing requirements. > The NomCom asks the IESG what skills and tasks are needed in > the view of the current IESG. > The IESG serves up this information and NomCom can do with it > as it likes. > > More important, the community can and should tell the NomCom > what it wants the IESG to do and not do. >... Adrian, First, we fundamentally agree, especially about the community needing to prioritize what it is willing to have not done. But that is where the comment that Dave, myself, and others have made about the fate of earlier proposals to trim the job have come in. For example, either of the following would, I believe and your note implies, significantly reduce the workload: * Many years ago, there were some proposals to limit the number of WGs to what could be effectively managed without growing the IESG or turning it into a full-time job. Those proposals had some differences in the decision-making process and way of imposing limits, but the basic ideas involved a higher creation threshold, a ceiling on numbers, and a fairly brutal attitude toward non-performing WGs. My recollection is that the fate of both proposals is that the IESG simply refused to consider them (but I could be wrong -- it has been a long time) * Somewhat more recently, there were some proposals to take the formal approval role away from the IESG and assign it to some other body. That would have eliminated the "review every document and vote" part of the job description and the small conflict involved in an AD being expected to both advocate for a WG to the rest of the IESG and be the technical evaluator its work of its work, replacing it with much more of a WG management, oversight, and steering role. That change would also significantly reduce the requirement (or preference) that each IESG member have significant expertise in two or three areas in addition to her own and permit a tad more emphasis on IESG management skills. At least for the one of those proposals I remember best, the IESG simply refused to consider it. If the IESG thought those proposals were interesting at this stage, I think the old I-Ds could be dug out, updated and polished slightly, and posted before Monday's cutoff (I can make that commitment for the two or three that have my name on them; can't speak for Dave or others, but the IPR policy would, in principle, permit anyone to retrieve those drafts and repost them). That would, at least in principle, permit some discussion (perhaps even during the plenary) early enough to do the Nomcom some good if the community and IESG actually seemed interested. To save an extra note... --On Thursday, October 17, 2013 15:46 -0400 Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Oct 17, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2B. Quickly replace failing WG Chairs. > > You forgot "from a magical pool of better qualified WG chairs > who have the time and inclination to take on the work." This > is actually very similar to the AD acquisition problem. Actually, it isn't. If the Nomcom can't find a satisfactory person to serve as AD, we have a constitutional crisis of some flavor. If there isn't a candidate (or, if necessary two) who is able to satisfactorily lead and manage a WG, that is, at least IMO, _extremely_ strong evidence that there isn't sufficient community interest in the WG and its work. Lack of available leadership is actually an easier criterion for deciding to cut off a WG than considerations about milestones or other differences between expectations about progress and delivery. I don't know how much work it would get rid of in today's environment, but it would be a very effective way of getting rid of situations in which the AD basically had to fill in for disfunctional WG leadership. In addition, at least as things are now formulated, an AD is required to have the knowledge and interest to review documents across areas and to manage multiple groups with different tasks and objectives (more like departmental management skills than project management ones) as well as to make commitments in two-year units. WG Chairs don't have any of those requirements: unless the WG has been permitted to explode into a many-task, many-document, virtual subarea, they should be able to finish a set of closely related tasks and move on. best, john