Hi Pete,
At 08:33 10-10-2014, Pete Resnick wrote:
Assuming you meant "not willing", I think you're being a bit
unrealistic, or at least not being nuanced enough, about this. For
better or worse, the way we select folks for the IESG now, we ask
for a serious two year commitment, one that normally involves
talking to employers and re-arranging life for quite some period of
time. Even if *theoretically* a given AD would be willing to resign
for the good of the community, there are going to be cultural and
social pressures on the IESG not to "re-organize one of their own
out of a job". I'd like to think we weren't susceptible to such
influences, but I think it's there in the background. Furthermore,
it's not really fair to ask someone to make a commitment
I'll highlight a point in the above: pressure not to reorganize one
of their own out of a job. Here's what APPS may be in 2016:
- The current APPS AD deciding whether to stay or not
If the IESG drops one of the APPS AD roles the new APPS AD would stay
on and the current APPS AD role is redundant [1].
If the IESG is creating a Area A it would have to define the
expertise for "A". This might entail reviewing all the AD roles for
that area. The IESG still ends up with reorganizing one or more of
their own out of a job.
I would say:
(a) Shut down APPS in 2016
(b) Define the expertise for "A" for 2016
Some of the working groups in (a) does not necessarily have to move
to "A". By doing this in 2016 you get to push in desired expertise
into more than one area [2].
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. This is the process angle.
2. One does not have to look for rare birds.