On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Brian> Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we
> Brian> are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint
> Brian> technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the
> Brian> specific area. It's a practical matter.
>
> I actually think expecting ADs to learn a fair bit on the IESG is part
> of coming up to speed on the IESG. I'm aware of people who served on
> the IESG with me who had significant gaps in material their area
> covered. In some cases, this was solved by splitting work load. In
> some cases it was covered by having the AD learn a lot. In one case the
> AD came in having huge gaps in half of the area in question. Today that
> person is considered an expert in one of the areas where he had the
> largest gaps and is focusing most of his effort there.
>
> I wouldn't want someone on the IESg without a strong technical presence
> in the IETF.
> It matters less to me whether it's in the area in question.
>
> And yes, I've thought about how I'd feel if someone jumped from another
> area to security. I can think of a number of APS or RAI ADs who I think
> could succeed in the security area if they decided to put in the effort
> to learn on the job. It would be a huge investment in effort, but it
> could succeed.
>
> IESG-level review of a document really is a skill that can be
> learned. It helps to have a lot to draw on, but I don't believe anyone
> can (or does) have coverage of all the areas they are reviewing. The
> huge part of the skill is to figure out how to do the technical job even
> given that.
> It involves trusting others sometimes, reading discussions, learning new
> things. Sometimes though, you do just have to spend the effort to
> understand some particular issue well enough to make an informed
> opinion.
>
> Having experts in areas doesn't escape this. When there's an appeal or a
> disagreement between areas it can be important for ADs to come up to
> speed on an issue outside their area and make an informed decision about
> it.
>
> So in conclusion, I strongly value technical contribution and
> demonstrated ability to pick up new knowledge in an AD. I do not highly
> value knowing all the things going on in a specific area at the time the
> AD joins the IESG.
[MB] I totally agree. That's one of the points I've been trying to
make (in a far less succinct manner). [/MB]
>
> --Sam
