Re: Generalist ADs?

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 03/26/2015 01:38 PM, Black, David wrote:
>
> Hi Spencer,
>
> I usually leave “silly rabbit ...” lines to the ADs - they’re better 
> at that than I am ;-).
>
> Currently, with the exception of the IETF Chair, ADs are selected with 
> a strong focus on specific expertise in an Area.  I was suggesting 
> adding a few “At-Large” ADs who would be selected with a strong focus 
> on generalist skills, and I think I saw other comments in favor of 
> adding generalists to the IESG during discussion of the initial area 
> merge proposal.
>
> The At-Large ADs could serve as out-of-area ADs to spread the WG 
> management load.  In addition, the existence of At-Large AD positions 
> could help the NomCom; if for some Area, the preferable slate of new 
> AD candidates and continuing ADs is missing an important chunk of 
> expertise, perhaps one of the good At-Large AD candidates would have 
> that expertise.
>
>
Generalist ADs could also be valuable in helping IESG manage tussles 
between areas, since a generalist AD would be more likely to see such 
tussles and take steps to resolve them, than an IESG that's buried deep 
in a particular area or layer of the protocol stack.

Keith