On 12/28/2014 8:15 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a > "correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or Area) of > expertise is always the best person to manage any particular WG. There > are obvious examples like APP WGs that, while really needing the > constituency of the APP area to come to consensus on the work, really > are better coordinated by a SEC AD. Pete, Without commenting on any of the surrounding decisions or on-going discussion, I'm curious about the above. And my query is meant to be basic, not critical. It's been a long-standing assumption that the above view you cite is correct, and it certainly seems logical. But after now having watched some working group assignments of this type, I couldn't tell you what actual benefit there was. Note, for example, that the coordinating area director does not make principal contributions to the technical work of the group. In fact, there have arguably been some problems, given that participants active in the 'coordinating' area often lack much experience with the nature and needs of the 'visiting' working group. More generally, perhaps your comment: > However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a "correct" AD for every WG, raises the possibility that AD job descriptions ought to make explicit reference to cross-area skills? This, of course, leads to the challenge of figuring out what that means, in pragmatic terms. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net