For what it's worth ...
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Several years ago, Russ gathered what was then all of the previous Nomcom chairs who would still answer his e-mail into a design team, to see what issues came up year after year. I was honored to be the scribe for that design team.
The past chairs (not ¨we, including Spencer¨, because I was just typing) came up with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00, which is a fairly interesting document to look over. In my opinion.
Some of the issues they identified have been addressed (for example, ¨5.3. Soliciting Feedback on Non-Incumbent Candidates¨ led to Open List/http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5680), but others have not been.
The past chairs (not ¨we, including Spencer¨, because I was just typing) came up with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00, which is a fairly interesting document to look over. In my opinion.
Some of the issues they identified have been addressed (for example, ¨5.3. Soliciting Feedback on Non-Incumbent Candidates¨ led to Open List/http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5680), but others have not been.
I have been thinking about ¨3.1. Shortening the NomCom Epoch¨ recently, because it would be really handy if the Nomcom epoch wasn't like 9 months long, and basically a train that leaves once a year, when we are talking about proposed IESG structural changes ... and the consensus of the past chairs was that shorter would be better ...
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Of course.
Spencer