On rereading, my previous reply could have been better formulated..
--On 1. august 2005 12:42 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of
the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the
job this
--On 27. juli 2005 09:08 -0400 Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to disagree somewhat with this line suggesting stricter limits on
serving duration.
I agree that a lack of bench strength is a real problem that should be
addressed.
I suspect that we may have more bench strength
I have argued at times (draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel) that our
current structure of 2 area-specific ADs managing a bunch of
WG-specific WG chairs is not optimal.
Yeah, and I wish it hadn't expired ... perhaps we could try again, now
that Harald has some time on his retired-AD hands?
It is
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the
people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this
time,
In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism.
Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of
the
people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job
this
time,
In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism.
Generally, one doesn't expect to see this advocated in a public forum
--On 1. august 2005 12:42 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of
the people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the
job this time,
In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:42:30PM -0400, Eric Rosen wrote:
the normal process for AD replacement involved choosing which of the
people who had worked with the AD for a long time could do the job this
time,
In American vernacular, this procedure is known as cronyism.
