Jari,
Largely playing devil's advocate and with the understanding that
I probably won't post further on this...
--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 06:00 -0700 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
However, I wanted to just talk a bit about the timing and the
number of ADs. And again, some of this is theoretical because
we have definitely not decided _what_ to do; we are still
exploring the exact re-organisation that we would like to
make. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that we'd
for instance combine APP and RAI and put in three ADs. Now,
today we *do* have two ADs in APP. For the recruitment of
proper number of ADs with the suitable expertise in next
year's Nomcom cycle, the restructuring should be ready in
the summer, preferably in June. So that we could inform the
Nomcom of what the desired expertise is. If we have the right
number of ADs at that point, we can just go ahead and make the
transition. So we wouldn't be without a second AD in the
area for a long time.
On the other hand, some of us perceive that some topics and WGs
in the area are being somewhat underserved already, with two
ADs. I don't know whether that opinion is either generally
shared or correct but, if it were even partially so, unless it
could be guaranteed that everything would be sorted out before
March, that would imply a single AD who is already close to the
available-time limit having to deal with both some additional
WGs _and_ a key role in the discussion of what to do next. That
would be bad news whether the priorities chosen were to let the
discussion slip or to pay less attention to some WGs. If Barry
had neither a day job nor limits on the number of hours in a
day, it would presumably not be a problem but many of us have
discovered that getting more than 24 hour into a day, or giving
up sleep entirely, are fairly difficult even before day jobs are
considered.
That would be a non-issue if the IESG already had a plan
worked out to transition some specific WGs into other areas
by March 27 or earlier, but the announcement implies that is
not the case.
I think the key is that we do not have the plan worked out
_today_ so that we can not inform the Nomcom what kind of a
person(s) and how many we'd like to recruit. We might have a
plan by March and certainly will have a plan by May which even
the new IESG can stand behind. But that is not today and
therefore it would be difficult for anyone to volunteer for
that undefined task today.
A different view of the same issue is that one of the barriers
to candidacies for the IESG is the requirement to make a
two-year commitment (and, in practice, really a four-year one).
There might well be people who would be able and willing to
volunteer for a transition job with the understanding that it
would be a one-year commitment at most and might even turn out
to be a six month one with a graceful opportunity to step down
because the needed job was completed. In addition, one of the
reasons I'd encourage giving the Nomcom a request to fill the
position if someone appropriate could be found but just let it
go otherwise is that the latter choice, if made, would leave the
IESG no worse off than simply indicating that the position not
be filled. And, if someone could be appointed, it would either
be a really easy job for a while or avoid the risks of being
short-handed during a transition.
Again, just a thought...
best,
john