John, Thanks for your comments. > This isn't quite a suggestion since the IESG has apparently made > up its mind, but, especially in a time of transition, there are > some major advantages to having two ADs in an area, including > the ability of two specialists with different perspectives to > talk with each other and sort out ideas. Everyone who has > gotten a cross-area review comment that seemed to be off the > wall from an out-of-area AD will understand why general > conversations with the rest of the IESG are no substitute (even > though they may be very helpful and important for other > reasons). > > So, all other things being equal, I think it would have been > better to ask the Nomcom to make a one-year appointment if they > could find someone satisfactory [1] and then sort things out > during the next year as planned but with two Apps ADs rather > than cutting the slot now on the assumption that one AD could > and would be able to handle all relevant working groups, > thinking about new plans, and all other IESG responsibilities. > …. > john > > [1] If the IESG and Nomcom could interpret the rules > appropriately, my thought would be to explicitly tell the Nomcom > that it would be ok to not make an appointment if they concluded > that they couldn't find someone satisfactory for the role, i.e., > without either making an appointment of someone inexperienced in > the area or scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel. This could have been another alternative. And still is, because we are indeed asking for feedback and want to understand if the suggested path is the best one. And having two ADs to discuss amongst themselves what to do is very useful. It certainly was essential for me when I was the INT AD. And especially useful in the first year or two. However, I wanted to just talk a bit about the timing and the number of ADs. And again, some of this is theoretical because we have definitely not decided _what_ to do; we are still exploring the exact re-organisation that we would like to make. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that we’d for instance combine APP and RAI and put in three ADs. Now, today we *do* have two ADs in APP. For the recruitment of proper number of ADs with the suitable expertise in next year’s Nomcom cycle, the restructuring should be ready in the summer, preferably in June. So that we could inform the Nomcom of what the desired expertise is. If we have the right number of ADs at that point, we can just go ahead and make the transition. So we wouldn’t be without a second AD in the area for a long time. > That would be a non-issue if the IESG already had a plan worked > out to transition some specific WGs into other areas by March 27 > or earlier, but the announcement implies that is not the case. I think the key is that we do not have the plan worked out _today_ so that we can not inform the Nomcom what kind of a person(s) and how many we’d like to recruit. We might have a plan by March and certainly will have a plan by May which even the new IESG can stand behind. But that is not today and therefore it would be difficult for anyone to volunteer for that undefined task today. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail