Please get it done

[James Kempf]

I like the approach as well. I think we ought to ask for nominations,
and give Nomcom a list of critera. Hopefully, we can get such a list
without a 6 month discussion.

The important thing AFAIC is that there is a dedicated AD, that the
individual is perceived by the community to be capable of doing an
objective and fair job, and that she or he has enough working
knowledge of the IETF, including how IESG and IAB function, that they
are able to make informed judgements about suggestions which come from
the Working Groups. Some proven management skill may also be useful,
as is always the case with an AD. I don't think a new Area is really
necessary, however.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw at windriver.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: Please get it done


>
> Hi Brian,
>
> At 12:27 PM 5/21/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > no - I was thinking about adding another AD to the General
area - either
> > > assigning the hat to an existing IESG member or asking Nomcom to
fill a new
> > > slot.
> >
> >Yes, there is no point whatever in artificially creating a new Area
> >for this. A new AD, not an existing one, should resolve the
perception
> >of conflict of interest. Ask Nomcom.
> >
> >Let's get it done, rather the repeating the arguments yet again.
>
> I like this approach.
>
> Should we just trust the Nomcom to pick the right person, or should
> we offer some suggestions regarding the "independence" criteria and
> "neutrality" that some have suggested is important to maintaining
> the credibility of the process?
>
> Do we specifically want someone who has never served on the I*?
> Or at least not in the last 10 years, since everyone seems to agree
> that some of the problems have existed at least that long?
>
> And are there particular qualifications for this position, such
> as experience with process management and process improvement?
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>