Margaret, > > However, I question the wisdom of choosing to work on this issue _right now_ > in the middle of the nomcom selection process, rather than choosing the best > candidates we can and working on this problem for next year, or for future > years. It doesn't seem likely that there are any quick fixes here. > > If the IESG does decide to reorganize the TSV area(s) and/or reduce the > number of seats right now, I think you need to seriously consider the > possibility that all of the ADs in the affected/related areas should resign, > so that the nomcom can pick the best set of ADS to cover the area(s) given > the remaining seats. So, even that sort of change isn't likely to solve the > problem next week. > > I'd like to receive some explanation (privately or publicly) about why we are > doing this in the middle of the nomcom process that makes any sense to me…
I didn't want to imply that we necessarily couple the actions we take. I agree of course that right now we have an issue to solve. I agree that we should do whatever to complete the current process, and that waiting for a reorganisation would be a bad idea. However, given that I feel that I've been through varying levels of similar issues for last couple of years, I would also like to ensure that we do something more permanent. Counting backwards from various deadlines, if we are going to make a change for 2014, then the IESG requirements and area descriptions need to be given to noncom by July this year. That is coming up very fast. If we would do something bigger, that needs a lot of discussion in the community. Not saying we necessarily should reorganise, but we need to consider the options. Hope this clarifies, Jari
