Hi Jari,
On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:24 AM, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
And I think we should have a broader view about this than just updating the
requirements for the seat. There are a couple of other aspects to consider as
well. First, perhaps the way that we have organised TSV is contributing to
the problems. Would a different organisation, say, a different grouping of
the working groups to areas help businesses see a bigger value in sponsoring
an AD for the area? Should the area be merged with something else, and if we
did that, would that change available funding or expertise? Or do we have the
right number of ADs to begin with? Second, are there more general things that
we could do about the AD role, making it easier to do the job, e.g., as an
academic and on the side of your other duties? This might also increase the
number of available candidates in other areas.
I completely agree with this.
The shortage of candidates is not only a problem in the Transport area, even
though it might be more obvious in this area, so I think we should focus on
this as a general problem not a specific one.
However, I question the wisdom of choosing to work on this issue _right now_ in
the middle of the nomcom selection process, rather than choosing the best
candidates we can and working on this problem for next year, or for future
years. It doesn't seem likely that there are any quick fixes here.
If the IESG does decide to reorganize the TSV area(s) and/or reduce the number
of seats right now, I think you need to seriously consider the possibility that
all of the ADs in the affected/related areas should resign, so that the nomcom
can pick the best set of ADS to cover the area(s) given the remaining seats.
So, even that sort of change isn't likely to solve the problem next week.
I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we are
doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to me...
Margaret