Having read this thread.....
- The IESG considers a structural change to its organization of work.
- The IESG considers that the timeframe for figuring out details of this
change is on the order of a year.
- The IESG thinks that as part of the details of this change, it's
unlikely to add more workload to an area that has quite few groups in
the near future.
- The IESG therefore thinks that it should leave an AD position in this
area open for a while.
It's clear that the roles and job descriptions on the IESG are described
by the IESG. It's perfectly reasonable for them to say "this post needs
to be eliminated".
The procedural objections here seem to all be of the form "the IESG
should have told the nomcom this when it sent the position descriptions
to the Nomcom".
Now consider the timing.
It's October. The new AD (if selected) will be added to the IESG in
March, and will be selected for a period of 2 years (unless he resigns).
In July, there would not have been a procedural issue with this request
at all.
So - we're talking about a lead time of 5 months here, and having a
procedural tizzy because the lead time isn't 8 months. For something
that (if the person remains on the IESG for 2 years) will have effect 29
months from now.
I'm in a rapidly changing organziation during my day work. When a
decision on structure was reached, it got *implemented* on a timeframe
shorter than the nomcom getting its brief and the IESG saying that "you
might want to consider this point".
The timeframes we're dealing with for changes in the IETF have lost
touch with the needs of the world the IETF operates in; the world has
become considerably faster, and the IETF has not.
I, for one, welcome the signs of change. If the change requested makes
sense, do it.
Procedures exist to make the organization work better. Not the other way
round.
Harald