Lars,
Let's try that statement parametrised:
"*Someone* on the IESG needs to understand X."
I think there are many plausible values of X, certainly including
congestion control. But what do we do when, for some value of X,
there is no such AD?
What I'm getting at is that this line of argument doesn't scale.
The only solution I see is to replace it by
"Several people on the Y Directorate need to understand X."
That probably does scale. Of course, it implies that ADs consult
and trust the relevant Directorate.
Regards
Brian
On 03/03/2013 12:50, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 13:37, Eric Burger <eburger(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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.
I don't believe the requirements are too tight. *Someone* one the IESG needs
to understand congestion control.
The likely possibility is that many qualified people failed to get sufficient
employer support to be able to volunteer. It's at least a 50% time
committment.
Lars.