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