--On 27. juli 2005 09:08 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" <joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I have to disagree somewhat with this line suggesting stricter limits on
serving duration.
I agree that a lack of bench strength is a real problem that should be
addressed.
I suspect that we may have more bench strength than we think.
I strongly suspect that with some of the other changes being discussed (I
like the separate review idea, although I think it needs some work) there
will be more capability to do more sane jobs.
However, defining the process so taht if we turn out to have insufficient
bench strength we produce a disaster seems extremely bad design.
I have argued at times (draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel) that our current
structure of 2 area-specific ADs managing a bunch of WG-specific WG chairs
is not optimal.
If the *normal* case for an area was that one had a group of 5-10 area
experts, one (or two) of which was serving as AD at any time, and the
normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who
had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, I think
our "bench strength" would be greatly increased.
It would also make a lot of the arguments for 2-AD areas less convincing.
But that's entirely orthogonal to draft-klensin-nomcom-terms, which is why
I changed the subject.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf