Let's make the benches longer.... (Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On 27. juli 2005 09:08 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> 
wrote:

> I have to disagree somewhat with this line suggesting stricter limits on
> serving duration.
> I agree that a lack of bench strength is a real problem that should be
> addressed.
> I suspect that we may have more bench strength than we think.
> I strongly suspect that with some of the other changes being discussed (I
> like the separate review idea, although I think it needs some work) there
> will be more capability to do more sane jobs.
>
> However, defining the process so taht if we turn out to have insufficient
> bench strength we produce a disaster seems extremely bad design.

I have argued at times (draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel) that our current 
structure of 2 area-specific ADs managing a bunch of WG-specific WG chairs 
is not optimal.

If the *normal* case for an area was that one had a group of 5-10 area 
experts, one (or two) of which was serving as AD at any time, and the 
normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the people who 
had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this time, I think 
our "bench strength" would be greatly increased.

It would also make a lot of the arguments for 2-AD areas less convincing.

But that's entirely orthogonal to draft-klensin-nomcom-terms, which is why 
I changed the subject.

                 Harald



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf