[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thinking about adding another AD in the General(ish) area
- To: iesg@ietf.org
- Subject: Thinking about adding another AD in the General(ish) area
- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:51:11 -0800
This is something I've been thinking of for a while, but if doing this
makes sense in the current cycle, we need to get this into Rich's hands
Real Soon Now...
in the current situation, two things have become clear:
- There are a number of activities going on that the IETF Chair feels
responsible for. Some of them, but far from all, involve the General area
and the procedure updates. Others include a lot of inter-function
relationship management, and keeping track of IETF-wide topics and issues
that cannot be solved within a single area.
- There are a significant number of those things that has a significant
amount of context which is not shared with the rest of the IESG. The IAB
chair shares quite a lot of the context, but does not have the same areas
of responsibility.
- The load imposed by process issues is very high at the moment, and is
likely to stay there for some time - but should eventually decrease to a
more reasonable level.
- The way the IESG works is likely to have to change anyway, for other
reasons, so adding more people to the IESG might not be so much of a
long-term problem that I've thought it would be before.
Considering all this, I suggest that we can ask the Nomcom for an AD to
fill the position of "Assistant IETF Chair and General AD". The function of
this person would be to be the other AD for the General area, just as in
other two-person areas, and to assist and consult with the Chair in
following up IETF-wide issues and cross-area issues. Decision power for
chair issues would not change, but the assistant chair would be expected to
keep abreast of what the current issues are.
Given the current rate of change in this area, I suggest that we select
that person for a period of ONE year, not two.
makes any sense?