On 03/03/2013 20:14, Michael Richardson wrote:
"Eric" == Eric Burger <eburger(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com> writes:
Eric> There are two other interpretations of this situation, neither
Eric> of which I think is true, but we should consider the
Eric> possibility. The first is the TSV is too narrow a field to
Eric> support an area director and as such should be folded in with
Eric> another area. The second is if all of the qualified people
Eric> have moved on and no one is interested in building the
Eric> expertise the IESG feels is lacking, then industry and
Eric> academia have voted with their feet: the TSV is irrelevant and
Eric> should be closed.
To be considered qualified the candidate needed to:
a) have demonstrated subject matter expertise (congestion in this case)
b) have demonstrated IETF management expertise (current/former WG chair)
c) have time available
Generally speaking, people who can not satisfy (c) do not show up on the
list of nominees, as they have to decline the nomination.
There definitely are many people who have (a) and (b), but not (c).
Were money not an issue, filing this position would be easy.
The nomcom then needs to look at the remaining candidates and along with
the confirming body (the IAB) determine if they can compromise on (a)
or (b).
Brian has suggested that (b) is more important than (a).
What I'm saying is that if you have nobody that satisfies all three
constraints, you have to make a choice, and the choice of (b)+(c)
is a legitimate judgment call. I don't know whether NomCom did this
and submitted it to the confirming body, or whether the NomCom failed
to make a choice.
Incidentally, while mulling this over, it occurred to me that RFC 3777
doesn't (I believe) talk about conflict of interest within the
confirming bodies. I do recall members of the IAB and the ISOC Board
recusing themselves from confirmation discussions on occasion, but that
was done on an ad hoc basis. I wonder whether we should write something
down about this.
Brian