Hannes,
On 03/03/2013 09:15, Hannes Tschofenig 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.
The IESG guidance to NomCom uses "should" extensively, and includes a request
to NomCom to seek "the best possible balance". So, while having one AD out
of two who has limited expertise in the area has very obvious downsides, so
does having only one AD, given current workloads.
Clearly the NomCom felt it was between a rock and a hard place; I just
want to assert the principle that balancing both managerial and technical
abilities is within NomCom's remit.
Brian
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