ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

2013-03-03 06:38:18
There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither of which I think 
is true, but we should consider the possibility. The first is the TSV is too 
narrow a field to support an area director and as such should be folded in with 
another area. The second is if all of the qualified people have moved on and no 
one is interested in building the expertise the IESG feels is lacking, then 
industry and academia have voted with their feet: the TSV is irrelevant and 
should be closed.

Since I believe neither is the case, it sounds like the IESG requirements are 
too tight.

On Mar 3, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Hannes Tschofenig 
<hannes(_dot_)tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net> wrote:

Brian, you are essentially saying that the Nomcom should "ignore the 
requirements". 

I believe we would attract more candidates right from the beginning if we 
lower the requirements.

The transport area has historically had a this strong emphasis on congestion 
control expertise for at least one of the serving transport ADs and this 
requirement seems to reduce the pool of available candidates quite severely. 

Ciao
Hannes

On Mar 3, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 03/03/2013 05:00, IETF Chair wrote:
...
advance.  Since this discussion could lead to a change in the IESG
requirements, the IESG encourages the community to take part in this
discussion so that any changes are based on broad community input.

When there is a choice between nominating nobody, and nominating someone
with excellent IETF experience and management skills, but who is not a
recognised specialist in the narrow technical area concerned, I believe
that standing advice to the NomCom should be to appoint such a candidate.

Also the standing advice to the confirming body should be to confirm
such a nominee.

We are too hung up on our narrow specialisations in the IETF.

 Brian


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature