Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Having read this thread.....
...
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.
Very nicely put and I agree 100%. Sure, it would have been better all around if the conclusion not to staff had been made sooner. But given a choice between making a change the IESG has concluded is needed and insisting on following procedures to the last detail, the former overwhelmingly makes more sense. Ned