Hi Spencer,
I usually leave “silly rabbit ...” lines to the ADs - they’re better at that
than I am ;-).
Currently, with the exception of the IETF Chair, ADs are selected with a strong
focus on specific expertise in an Area. I was suggesting adding a few
“At-Large” ADs who would be selected with a strong focus on generalist skills,
and I think I saw other comments in favor of adding generalists to the IESG
during discussion of the initial area merge proposal.
The At-Large ADs could serve as out-of-area ADs to spread the WG management
load. In addition, the existence of At-Large AD positions could help the
NomCom; if for some Area, the preferable slate of new AD candidates and
continuing ADs is missing an important chunk of expertise, perhaps one of the
good At-Large AD candidates would have that expertise.
Thanks,
--David
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF
[mailto:spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:24 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Generalist ADs?
Hi, David,
You mentioned intentionally including one or more ADs who were generalists on
the IESG, during Admin Plenary open mike time last night.
I think I understood what you mean by that, because I responded to your comment
and you didn't say "no, silly rabbit, what I'm saying is ..."
But could you give us a sentence or two about what you're thinking?
(I think I agree, but I'd like to make sure I'm agreeing with what you're
thinking!)
Thanks,
Spencer