On 10/9/14 3:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Michael StJohns<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
> The IESG could have changed the vacancy slate any time up to the
> announcement of vacancies (29 Aug according to what I saw), but
> delayed making the decision for a month past the deadline. That's
> not insoluble, but it disturbs me that we're attempting to use
> exception processing rather than what's programmed in.
Yeah, I think we all wish we could have seen this coming earlier and
started on it before the NomCom got underway. Scheduling maintenance and
reconfiguration on the plane is hard enough, and doing so while in
flight is even harder. As you say, not great that we're using exception
processing for this, but not insoluble.
> The second issue (related to other comments) is that 3777 has no
> provision for appointing anyone for a term of a year or less. Again,
> not insoluble, but begs the question of why we have rules if we don't
> follow them.
Is the issue, what will a nomcom do in May 2015, if the IESG decides they
need another AD? My opinion is that the nomcom would appoint someone for
either 2 or 3 years (subtracting March/April/May). The term of ADs turns out
not to be "2 years", but rather a duration such that that about half should
be replaced every year.
I think MR's correct here: 3777 3.4 says,
The intent of this rule is to ensure that members of the IESG and
IAB serve the number of years that best facilitates the review of
one-half of the members each year.
If a new AD position is created, I think doing a 3 year appointment is
most consonant with 3777 3.4, but I don't think 1 year is forbidden.
> Other comments, especially JCK's, have noted that the work will
> not decrease as there will continue to be some similar number of
> WGs and questioning on that basis the desire to not appoint a new
> APPs AD.
On this point, which MR didn't address: One of the motivations for going
down one APP AD now is that there *is* a current lull in APP work.
Several APP WGs are currently in FIN_WAIT, or close too it. We expect
that in the short term, there are going to be 8-10 APP WGs for a single
AD to deal with, which is pretty average across the IESG. Given that we
will not know what particular expertise is needed once that re-org is
complete, this seemed like the perfect time to hold off on filling the
position.
> Instead, let me suggest the IESG put its head together and figure out
> where a more general AD might be of use for two years. Given the large
> number of cross area WGs, perhaps re-working the job description into
> husbanding the transition of some number of as yet to be defined WGs to
> the different areas might be useful and might actually be a 2 year
> task.
As MR said:
My take on this is that asking the nomcom not to fill a spot, at this late
hour, is just barely acceptable. Changing the job description might not be.
Not only would changing the job description to "generalist" right now be
simply a different "breaking of the rules", it's probably a bit more
problematic, especially in terms of NomCom logistics: We would have to
ask them to restart the search for candidates of this generalist
category. It's also not clear to me if we have a good handle on how this
would affect the operation of the IESG. We've done "one person short"
before and know how that works. Having a generalist is uncharted waters.
> Or other tasks related to the closure of the area that will no
> doubt occur to the IESG between now and next year.
A tangent, but I don't think Jari's point can be over-stressed: Whether
we end up with a combined APP/RAI area, or a redistribution of work from
assorted areas and we're back to 8 areas, or some other configuration,
we shouldn't think of this as a "closure of the area". The work will
continue, and we are quite sure there will continue to be work. And we
certainly have not concluded what the re-org will result in.
> Also, AFAIK, there
> is no requirement that a WG be owned by one of the area directors of
> its primary area - stick the APPs AD as the primary owner for the WG,
> but pick a secondary owner from the gaining area to ease transition.
Hmmm....
2418, 2:
Anyone interested in creating an
IETF working group MUST obtain the advice and consent of the IETF
Area Director(s) in whose area the working group would fall and MUST
proceed through the formal steps detailed in this section.
Pushing the boundaries. Doesn't mean we can't do it.
Yes, there are other ways to approach this. My sense is the IESG thinks
the "1) drop an AD; 2) re-shuffle the groups/areas/categories; 3) see
what ADs we need for next go-round" is the least disruptive at this point.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478