Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka),
If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat
comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical
review, so I'd like to at least ask one question...
In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we) both assumed that
the addition of an Standards Review Panel would mean that that the IESG
participants remained on the IESG. But now I'm wondering - if we have a
future-SRP and a future-IESG, which one of these does the current IESG
more closely resemble?
I'm trying to figure out if we're really adding a Standards Review
Panel, because the existing IESG is spending too much time on standards
review, or whether the existing IESG is spending a LOT of time on
standards review, so we're really adding an Internet Engineering
Steering Group...
See Sam's comment about where the time goes. But indeed there are two
questions hiding here:
1. What sort of people would NomCom be told to look for the two
roles?
2. Would there be enough suitable people willing to take on both
the AD role truncated of final review responsibility, and the Reviewer
role which has no management responsibility?
[i.e. will these roles appear fulfilling enough to attract a good slate
of candidates?]
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf