On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
Brian> Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we
Brian> are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint
Brian> technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the
Brian> specific area. It's a practical matter.
I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part
of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on
the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area
covered. In some cases, this was solved by splitting work load. In
some cases it was covered by having the AD learn a lot. In one case the
AD came in having huge gaps in half of the area in question. Today that
person is considered an expert in one of the areas where he had the
largest gaps and is focusing most of his effort there.
I wouldn't want someone on the IESg without a strong technical presence
in the IETF.
It matters less to me whether it's in the area in question.
And yes, I've thought about how I'd feel if someone jumped from another
area to security. I can think of a number of APS or RAI ADs who I think
could succeed in the security area if they decided to put in the effort
to learn on the job. It would be a huge investment in effort, but it
could succeed.
IESG-level review of a document really is a skill that can be
learned. It helps to have a lot to draw on, but I don't believe anyone
can (or does) have coverage of all the areas they are reviewing. The
huge part of the skill is to figure out how to do the technical job even
given that.
It involves trusting others sometimes, reading discussions, learning new
things. Sometimes though, you do just have to spend the effort to
understand some particular issue well enough to make an informed
opinion.
Having experts in areas doesn't escape this. When there's an appeal or a
disagreement between areas it can be important for ADs to come up to
speed on an issue outside their area and make an informed decision about
it.
So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly
value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the
AD joins the IESG.
[MB] I totally agree. That's one of the points I've been trying to
make (in a far less succinct manner). [/MB]
--Sam