IESG spin-up time (was: Re: Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re)

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, 20 May, 2003 20:35 -0400 Margaret Wasserman 
<mrw at windriver.com> wrote:

> I pointed out that this would also have the downside
> of having the process run by someone who is new to the
> IESG processes.  I've been told that it takes 6+ months
> to come up-to-speed in the IESG, and I believe that.

Ok.  This has now been said several times.  Ignoring whether or 
not it applies to a possible "process" position or not, I think 
it represents a problem that belongs on the list and that isn't, 
as far as I can tell, there.

ADs serve a 24 month [initial] term.  Under our present system, 
we expect them to hit the ground running, regardless of their 
prior experience.  If they really take six months to come up to 
speed, it implies, first, that any area in which an AD is 
replaced is going to be running at reduced capability for half a 
year, which is a huge hit.  And the AD will be disfunctional, or 
at least below acceptable function levels, for fully one fourth 
of the initial term.

I suggest that, if this is what is happening, it is inefficient 
to the point of silliness and that we should get it on the list 
as a problem and build a framework for considering alternatives. 
Examples: Should we expand the initial term to three years so 
that the spin-up time is 1/6 of the term, rather than 1/4? 
Should we try to alter the transition process from "atomic 
handover after the
plenary of the first meeting of the year" to some flavor of "AD 
Elect" or "understudy" model that would permit most or all of 
that six months of acclimatization to before the new AD actually 
had any WG management responsibilities?

If we see a six-month startup period as real and a problem, 
there are a number of low-disruption ways get around that and to 
meet him again.

         john