The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between
"limited knowledge of congestion control" and "an empty seat". Which one is
more likely to be able to learn about it?
Margaret
On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
"Mary" == Mary Barnes
<mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
Mary> And, I continue to support Sam's position as well. To me the
Mary> question at hand is whether it will do more harm to fill the
Mary> position with someone that doesn't have the specific expertise
Mary> that his being sought than to leave the position unfilled.
Mary> Having dealt with the exact same issue when I was Nomcom
Mary> chair, I thoroughly understand the issue at hand. And,
Mary> certainly, there was a lot of criticism of the choice of the
Mary> Nomcom I chaired, but we really are between a rock and a hard
Mary> place yet again.
I think it would be really useful to get someone like Lars or the chair
of the tcpm working group to comment on how much congestion control
experience we're talking about as a requirement.
When I read Lars's messages, I'm not actually sure he and I are
disagreeing.
There's a lot of things it could mean for the IESG to have congestion
control expertise.