Mary,
On 03/03/2013 05:32 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Lars,
Do you not have individuals in the directorate that are experts on
congestion control (that aren't document authors) that can review for
technical sanity of the proposal? ISTM that some of the TSV nominees
We have individuals in the directorate that are experts on congestion
control and we will have also knowledge in the IESG after Wes will step
down in the next week, i.e., which is me.
I am not a full congestion control expert like some individuals out of
the directorate and also the community. But I do understand the topic
well enough and do know whom to ask in the case of doubt.
However, it is always good to have multiple eyes/2 ADs with a congestion
control background, as the topic is so sensitive to the proper operation
of the Internet and sometimes things slip through for a number or
reasons, i.e., for eyes see more than two eyes.
have broad technical skills, including management that could be quite
useful. Certainly, we have an example where a Nomcom appointed
someone with little expertise for a specific area and the result was
not good. However, I believe that was far more to do with how the
individual approached the role - authoritarian versus understanding
that from a technical perspective they should really listen to the
experts. IMHO, that's the most important skill that some ADs lack -
i.e., listening.
I agree and disagree:
An AD must be a good manager and be able to listen.
But, an AD must have a broad knowledge about the Area's technical
topics, as the time to dig into all fields is just too scare once you
are an AD. I.e., there is not enough time to arrive as a manager and to
learn all the tech topics.
Regards,
Martin
In my experience at not all ADs carefully scrutinize WG items and they
tend to rely on the write-up of the shepherd. While the shepherd is
most often the WG chair, if they do their job properly, I believe that
the problems that an AD might encounter are fewer. I will note that
from what I have seen not all shepherds actually review the documents
themselves, which is a problem unto itself. There is often quite
visible when one does gen-art reviews. ISTM, there is a way for the
process to work with an AD that is not the technical expert in
specific areas IF others down the chain do their jobs properly. Of
course, IETF is really bad at managing down the chain when there are
weak links. IMHO, someone with decent project management and people
management skills can make a huge difference.
Regards,
Mary.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 3, 2013, at 15:35, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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."
only if the Y directorate reviews all IDs going through the IESG. Which in
itself is a scaling issue. It may work for some topics, but things will fall
through the cracks for various reasons.
IMO congestion control is important and fundamental enough that the IESG itself
needs to have the knowledge. YEs, I'm biased.
Lars
--
martin(_dot_)stiemerling(_at_)neclab(_dot_)eu
NEC Laboratories Europe
NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office:
Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB
Registered in England 2832014