Re: AD Time

[Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ted

Different areas or different ADs may have different needs depending on how many technologies and the crossovers.

Long term training has good ROI but I also think the outcome should be a flexible and flowing process adjusted to current needs rather than a regimented one which ends up being inadequate for other areas or worse obsolete very fast because different ADs or areas have different styles.

If ADs  cycles get burn just to keep current then we are missing out on opportunities to delegate.

Imho, there are a number of volunteers in the larger community with their heart in the right place willing to help/learn but they are not solicited enough. 

We should start at least with identifying what is needed to scale better or delegate in a useful manner.

Cheers

Padma

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2018, at 18:57, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 30, 2018, at 9:55 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Maybe a first stab at getting ADs more insight is to extend the
shepherd questionaire and therefore get at least WG chairs to try to figure
out better what the AD needs to make the right calls (or whever is the
shepherd).

That wouldn't hurt, but there's some value in having somebody who wasn't part of the process do the summary.   The same reason that it's good to have someone who didn't write the spec build an implementation and try to interoperate—often someone who is in the middle of things won't realize what they are leaving out.