Jari, Largely playing devil's advocate and with the understanding that I probably won't post further on this... --On Thursday, October 09, 2014 06:00 -0700 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > 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. On the other hand, some of us perceive that some topics and WGs in the area are being somewhat underserved already, with two ADs. I don't know whether that opinion is either generally shared or correct but, if it were even partially so, unless it could be guaranteed that everything would be sorted out before March, that would imply a single AD who is already close to the available-time limit having to deal with both some additional WGs _and_ a key role in the discussion of what to do next. That would be bad news whether the priorities chosen were to let the discussion slip or to pay less attention to some WGs. If Barry had neither a day job nor limits on the number of hours in a day, it would presumably not be a problem but many of us have discovered that getting more than 24 hour into a day, or giving up sleep entirely, are fairly difficult even before day jobs are considered. >> 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. A different view of the same issue is that one of the barriers to candidacies for the IESG is the requirement to make a two-year commitment (and, in practice, really a four-year one). There might well be people who would be able and willing to volunteer for a transition job with the understanding that it would be a one-year commitment at most and might even turn out to be a six month one with a graceful opportunity to step down because the needed job was completed. In addition, one of the reasons I'd encourage giving the Nomcom a request to fill the position if someone appropriate could be found but just let it go otherwise is that the latter choice, if made, would leave the IESG no worse off than simply indicating that the position not be filled. And, if someone could be appointed, it would either be a really easy job for a while or avoid the risks of being short-handed during a transition. Again, just a thought... best, john