Re: Generalist ADs?

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Sat, 28 Mar 2015 11:40:54 -0400



    On 03/26/2015 01:38 PM, Black, David
      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.
         
        
    Generalist ADs could also be valuable in helping IESG manage tussles
    between areas, since a generalist AD would be more likely to see
    such tussles and take steps to resolve them, than an IESG that's
    buried deep in a particular area or layer of the protocol stack.

    
    Keith