Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 05 March 2013 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2A321F8681 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:24:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L55PzZZjMeoy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E67821F8716 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:24:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8F79A4013; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:24:12 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LmKJdqkUQdqn; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:24:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-37-162.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.37.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2119A4011; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:24:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN52p6ZB0xaL-wPOjNZYoNSYjmR7Dp3M7zsc7P9uCWnUFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:24:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0953E927-6368-413F-A3D2-80D01E2BA35B@vigilsec.com>
References: <21B86E13-B8DA-4119-BBB1-B5EE6D2B5C1D@ietf.org> <51330179.3040500@gmail.com> <919840EE-BEC8-4F82-8D3C-B116698A4262@gmx.net> <1D88E6E9-33DE-4C4D-89F4-B0B762155D6F@standardstrack.com> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F77BA46@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <3CB8992B-212A-4776-95FE-71CA1E382FFF@standardstrack.com> <513376DB.7000200@dcrocker.net> <E22ACC99-B465-4769-8B59-BB98A7BA93DF@gmx.net> <79E77523-3D92-4CE9-8689-483D416794EF@standardstrack.com> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F780D2F@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <071C6ED7-352C-4E74-A483-F5E7A3270FA5@gmail.com> <C726E531-57DC-4C42-9053-1394983126D6@vigilsec.com> <5134D5A0.4050209@gmail.com> <tsllia3m5lh.fsf@mit.edu> <5134F720.5010507@cisco.com> <tsl1ubvlywt.fsf@mit.edu> <CAHBDyN6AM-_b2HMrmmQQVuhxFc-_Rfpfg0=r38mkcJ4zqoJeTw@mail.gmail.com> <tslr4julxmh.fsf@mit.edu> <1C1C0842-BF6A-4A3F-A312-35CF0A994793@lilacglade.org> <BDCCFB12-1F2C-44BD-867A-92E5745F3D39@vigilsec.com> <CAHBDyN52p6ZB0xaL-wPOjNZYoNSYjmR7Dp3M7zsc7 P9uCWnUFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:24:11 -0000

Mary:

>>> The problem with this argument is that it appears that we have a choice between "limited knowledge of congestion control" and "an empty seat".  Which one is more likely to be able to learn about it?
>> 
>> If that were the extent of this discussion, then the answer would be obvious.  It is not that simple.
>> 
>> This is not the first time we have experienced difficulty in filling the Transport AD seat.  Frankly, since RAI was extracted from Transport this has been a recurring concern.  At various points over the last three years, there have been discussions about reorganization.  That topic has come up on this thread already.
>> 
>> So, the community is faced with two choices:
>> (1) fill the seat with someone with limited knowledge of congestion control, but adequate time commitment to do the job; or
>> (2) reorganize the areas in some fashion.
> [MB] Can you expand on this reorganization? This wasn't explicitly
> stated in your original email.  How would this make up for not having
> someone with Congestion Control expertise, which seemed to be the core
> issue that has been discussed on this thread?   Note, I'm not debating
> there might be other value in the reorganization, I'm just puzzled as
> to how it solves this specific problem.
> [/MB]

The original email point to the requirements for the positions that NomCom is to fill.  A reorganization could change the positions or change the requirements.

Russ