Re: Task Force Model

This is a good idea!  Would the TAG appoint the task force?
My guess is they would look for volunteers.

We have often complained that the TAG does not get security
experts so, although there has been a desire to dig deeper into
security issues, this has not happened.  With the task force model
the TAG could appoint a group of people to write a white paper
or finding on some aspect of security.

Provided, of course, that they could get enough qualified volunteers :-)

All the best, Ashok

On 10/27/2014 4:56 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> I mentioned this at the last f2f, and I wanted to reiterate it incase it gets lost as I've had a number of conversations and I think that a lot of people think it's a compelling idea...
>
> The formal TAG being a small group has a lot of advantages, and we want those to be 'real people' too - and generally speaking - in order to get elected, you have to be involved in things.  This means that the # of person hours that can be spent are sort of inadequate in many cases to get the broad focus we want.   Similarly, we have rules which, for good or bad are the rules we have now, and they limit us to one person per org.  All of this means that we're probably not getting "the most" out of it that we could, so I have a suggestion:
>
> Adopt a model in TAG where you make use of appointing qualified individuals to a task force with a limited scope. If the neutrally elected TAG appointed someone to a task force, this has enough "credibility" that employers might be willing to pay, it could help stretch resources and work within existing constraints and get a lot more done.  The actual details could be further determined, but generally speaking a task force could help the TAG understand things at deeper levels without getting bogged down, they could make proposals or recommendations, and generally help align things more efficiently.
>
> -- 
> Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com <http://hitchjs.com/>