[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Thinking about adding another AD in the General(ish) area



--On 30. oktober 2003 16:22 -0800 hardie@qualcomm.com wrote:

At 12:22 PM -0800 10/30/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: 

I think we can do "General AD", slot two, by talking to the NomCom chair
(though I think we need to ask them to extend the nominations deadline
if we do, since it is two weeks from tomorrow now).  Having this be
"Vice Chair" is a little different, as I think it will look like
"successor", especially if the current Chair doesn't plan to re-up.
Making it a one year term increases this as a possibility and the
likely perception.


so what would you suggest as adequate process for that, if "talking to
the nomcom chair" once the IESG agrees to it is not adequate?

Agree that the timeframe for nominations has to be extended. 

How about you write what you wrote to the IESG in a wee little
Internet-Draft, we grant an extension to get it published as an I-D as
-00, and last call the sucker?  We'll get a four week community review,
and we can ask the NomCom to consider candidates at the same time or to
be filled after.

That makes a lot of sense to me!

We don't even have to waive the I-D publication deadline, I think - we could write the draft, post it on the ietf list, publish right after Minneapolis, and last-call it in the same way we last-called the RFC-Editor author restriction - "this isn't intended to be published as an RFC, but will be part of the BCP IESG charter when we get around to that, but in the meantime, we'd like to have explicit explicit confirmation from the community".

 Remember, we don't have to ask the NomCom to do this
job in concert with filling the rest of the roles, though it might help
if they knew they would have to do it (and it wouldn't hurt it they
happen to be able to get it done).
Or heck, ask for a second slot as
General AD *now* and suggest in your draft that the second slot General
AD be the Vice Chair of the IETF, and spell out what that means.

we could pass them the draft text and say "here's what we intend to use the GEN AD for, please select someone capable of filling that role, but the shape of the role is up for community review". That would make a lot of sense...

So far, we've heard from Margaret, Russ, Thomas and Ted on the IESG. Other thoughts?
If we agree that this is a good idea - other people we should consult before going public with it?

Harald