Re: Generalist ADs?

[Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>]

AD is AD, why we make different types, one type is enough and each AD is related to one area only. If we do general than why we have the IETF Chair? The Chair is the general AD, but if you mean some deputy to that position then I can understand that. However, each area can increase or decrease their directors as needed.

AB

On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Spencer,

 

I usually leave “silly rabbit ...” lines to the ADs - they’re better at that than I am ;-).

 

Currently, with the exception of the IETF Chair, ADs are selected with a strong focus on specific expertise in an Area.  I was suggesting adding a few “At-Large” ADs who would be selected with a strong focus on generalist skills, and I think I saw other comments in favor of adding generalists to the IESG during discussion of the initial area merge proposal.

 

The At-Large ADs could serve as out-of-area ADs to spread the WG management load.  In addition, the existence of At-Large AD positions could help the NomCom; if for some Area, the preferable slate of new AD candidates and continuing ADs is missing an important chunk of expertise, perhaps one of the good At-Large AD candidates would have that expertise.

 

Thanks,
--David

 

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Generalist ADs?

 

Hi, David,

 

You mentioned intentionally including one or more ADs who were generalists on the IESG, during Admin Plenary open mike time last night.

 

I think I understood what you mean by that, because I responded to your comment and you didn't say "no, silly rabbit, what I'm saying is ..."

 

But could you give us a sentence or two about what you're thinking?

 

(I think I agree, but I'd like to make sure I'm agreeing with what you're thinking!)

 

Thanks,

 

Spencer