Re: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 28 December 2014 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA32B1A89F2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EY-vDMkZqhpQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DF61A89AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.29.101.70] (wsip-72-214-58-13.sd.sd.cox.net [72.214.58.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sBSIX1q2013658 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:05 -0800
Message-ID: <54A04CDC.8020009@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:00 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Out-of-area ADs [Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps]
References: <5614C286-0CD2-4DAD-A846-510EE38D1B9A@ietf.org> <549DAE1C.5080400@gmail.com> <54A02C8A.3020707@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <54A02C8A.3020707@qti.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 28 Dec 2014 10:33:05 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Voi3KsP8anjBnNHkEp7EX2q10uY
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 18:33:08 -0000

On 12/28/2014 8:15 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a
> "correct" AD for every WG, or that the AD whose main area (or Area) of
> expertise is always the best person to manage any particular WG. There
> are obvious examples like APP WGs that, while really needing the
> constituency of the APP area to come to consensus on the work, really
> are better coordinated by a SEC AD.

Pete,

Without commenting on any of the surrounding decisions or on-going
discussion, I'm curious about the above.  And my query is meant to be
basic, not critical.

It's been a long-standing assumption that the above view you cite is
correct, and it certainly seems logical.

But after now having watched some working group assignments of this
type, I couldn't tell you what actual benefit there was.  Note, for
example, that the coordinating area director does not make principal
contributions to the technical work of the group.

In fact, there have arguably been some problems, given that participants
active in the 'coordinating' area often lack much experience with the
nature and needs of the 'visiting' working group.


More generally, perhaps your comment:

> However, we have not found that ADs are so specialized that there is a "correct" AD for every WG,

raises the possibility that AD job descriptions ought to make explicit
reference to cross-area skills?  This, of course, leads to the challenge
of figuring out what that means, in pragmatic terms.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net