On 10/9/14 3:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Michael StJohns<mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IESG could have changed the vacancy slate any time up to the
> The second issue (related to other comments) is that 3777 has no
> provision for appointing anyone for a term of a year or less. Again,
> not insoluble, but begs the question of why we have rules if we don't
> follow them.
Is the issue, what will a nomcom do in May 2015, if the IESG decides they
need another AD? My opinion is that the nomcom would appoint someone for
either 2 or 3 years (subtracting March/April/May). The term of ADs turns out
not to be "2 years", but rather a duration such that that about half should
be replaced every year.
I think MR's correct here: 3777 3.4 says,
The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and
IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of
one-half of the members each year.
If a new AD position is created, I think doing a 3 year appointment is most consonant with 3777 3.4, but I don't think 1 year is forbidden.
You need to read it all. Regular candidates serve a 2 or 3 year appointment. Mid-term vacancy fillers serve between 1 to three years depending on when the vacancy occurs. AFAIK we've never made a normal vacancy 1 year appointment. And I think its been a while since we've had a 3 year term appointment.
4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year term. The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of one-half of the members each year. The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid- term vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated elsewhere in this document. It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it may assign a term of not more than 3 years in order to ensure the ideal application of this rule in the future.
> Other comments, especially JCK's, have noted that the work will
> not decrease as there will continue to be some similar number of
> WGs and questioning on that basis the desire to not appoint a new
> APPs AD.
On this point, which MR didn't address: One of the motivations for going down one APP AD now is that there *is* a current lull in APP work. Several APP WGs are currently in FIN_WAIT, or close too it. We expect that in the short term, there are going to be 8-10 APP WGs for a single AD to deal with, which is pretty average across the IESG. Given that we will not know what particular expertise is needed once that re-org is complete, this seemed like the perfect time to hold off on filling the position.
> Instead, let me suggest the IESG put its head together and figure out
> where a more general AD might be of use for two years. Given the large
> number of cross area WGs, perhaps re-working the job description into
> husbanding the transition of some number of as yet to be defined WGs to
> the different areas might be useful and might actually be a 2 year
> task.
As MR said:
My take on this is that asking the nomcom not to fill a spot, at this late
hour, is just barely acceptable. Changing the job description might not be.
Not only would changing the job description to "generalist" right now be simply a different "breaking of the rules",
It's actually not a breaking of the rules:
The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the expertise desired of the candidates selected for their respective open positions to the Executive Director. The summaries are provided to the nominating committee for its consideration.
it's probably a bit more problematic, especially in terms of NomCom logistics: We would have to ask them to restart the search for candidates of this generalist category. It's also not clear to me if we have a good handle on how this would affect the operation of the IESG. We've done "one person short" before and know how that works. Having a generalist is uncharted waters.
Not really. The IETF chair is by definition something of a generalist and usually has work in more than one area during their participation. In the past, the Nomcom has moved ADs around like chess pieces to ensure coverage and we've had our shares of loosely defined temporary areas managed by ADs that had other responsibilities in other areas. This really isn't new territory.
If you decide to bring up a new area to replace APP.... does that even count as a mid-term vacancy or do you wait until a year from this coming January to put a new AD in place? Nevermind....
> Or other tasks related to the closure of the area that will no
> doubt occur to the IESG between now and next year.
A tangent, but I don't think Jari's point can be over-stressed: Whether we end up with a combined APP/RAI area, or a redistribution of work from assorted areas and we're back to 8 areas, or some other configuration, we shouldn't think of this as a "closure of the area". The work will continue, and we are quite sure there will continue to be work. And we certainly have not concluded what the re-org will result in.
Thanks for making my point. If you don't know what the re-org will result in, how is deciding that the APPs area AD going away is the correct decision?
Admittedly, you seem to be arguing yourself out of a job....
> Also, AFAIK, there
> is no requirement that a WG be owned by one of the area directors of
> its primary area - stick the APPs AD as the primary owner for the WG,
> but pick a secondary owner from the gaining area to ease transition.
Hmmm....
2418, 2:
Anyone interested in creating an
IETF working group MUST obtain the advice and consent of the IETF
Area Director(s) in whose area the working group would fall and MUST
proceed through the formal steps detailed in this section.
You're conflating apples and oranges. The APPs AD still has to approve new WGs in the APPs area - but that won't happen (e.g. he/she will say no) if there is a final decision to close out the area. The APPs AD isn't an area director in the new area, just helping out in the transition.
Pushing the boundaries. Doesn't mean we can't do it.
Yes, there are other ways to approach this. My sense is the IESG thinks the "1) drop an AD; 2) re-shuffle the groups/areas/categories; 3) see what ADs we need for next go-round" is the least disruptive at this point.
I'd say 0) figure out if APPs is really closing then 1) figure out which groups need to go where, then 2) drop an AD.
Again, nothing is insoluble, but this feels rushed and possibly not well thought through for implications and unintended consequences.
Mike