On 12/28/14 12:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/28/2014 8:15 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a
"correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or Area) of
expertise is always the best person to manage any particular WG. There
are obvious examples like APP WGs that, while really needing the
constituency of the APP area to come to consensus on the work, really
are better coordinated by a SEC AD.
Pete,
Without commenting on any of the surrounding decisions or on-going
discussion, I'm curious about the above. And my query is meant to be
basic, not critical.
It's been a long-standing assumption that the above view you cite is
correct, and it certainly seems logical.
But after now having watched some working group assignments of this
type, I couldn't tell you what actual benefit there was. Note, for
example, that the coordinating area director does not make principal
contributions to the technical work of the group.
In fact, there have arguably been some problems, given that participants
active in the 'coordinating' area often lack much experience with the
nature and needs of the 'visiting' working group.
To date, we really haven't changed the AD without changing the area as
well, and my experience is it's the *area* move that results in the
problems rather than the coordinating AD. That is, I think you're
exactly right that it's the *area's* lack of experience with the nature
and needs of visiting WGs that results in the problem, but that (and
YMMV) the AD assigned is really not what makes the difference. This also
goes to Nico and Brian's point, with which I disagree: Areas themselves
are *not* as flexible, and I think that's an OK thing: Areas do have
particular ways of working on problems, and WGs do tend to have a good
fit with those modes of working. Moving WGs from their "natural" area to
another one does not seem to help cross-area review all that much, but
does sometimes cause there to be a lack of the right people from the
home area in the room. (I think having a "foreign" AD *can* help the
cross-area problem, but that's a different discussion.)
More generally, perhaps your comment:
However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a
"correct" AD for every WG,
raises the possibility that AD job descriptions ought to make explicit
reference to cross-area skills? This, of course, leads to the challenge
of figuring out what that means, in pragmatic terms.
Maybe. I think individuals always come with some cross-area skills, so
it might be reasonable to stick with the kinds of area-specific
descriptions we give to the NomCom now and expect that there will
naturally be enough cross-area abilities to make things work. But we do
in fact do this sort of thing for the IAB: We tell them to "make sure
you get someone with i18n clue" or "congestion control clue" or "DNS
clue", and the NomCom has been known to look at the slate and make sure
there's *someone* with that sort of clue, even if there's nobody with
the particular expertise. I could see doing the same sort of thing for
the IESG cross-area skills without putting too much of an additional
burden on the NomCom.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478