To clarify, I was suggesting that we think about something a
little different. Not an expanded IESG (which I agree would be
a poor idea), or "deputy ADs", but a separate body, such that we
had one body charged with management/coordination and another
one charged with "review/approval" and with neither superior to,
or reporting to, the other.
The problems I see with "deputy ADs", review committees,
strengthened directorates, etc., are all, ultimately, the same:
We select very responsible people to serve on the IESG. As
long as they are, and feel, responsible, these additional bodies
or groups may help with the quality of review and may speed it
up, but most ADs, most of the time, will feel a need to still do
the reviews themselves, take responsibility for writeups issued
in their names, etc. And they will have more people to manage.
The only way out of that trap is a separate review body. Of
course, that has its own set of problems and issues, as others
have pointed out, but it would change the time equation and the
management/advocacy/decision conflicts and relationships. I
don't see additional structures that report to the IESG changing
either of those significantly.
--On Thursday, 28 April, 2005 20:39 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
Exactly right. We select AD's based on their technical
expertise, and expect them to use that expertise in reviewing
documents that come their way. This is one of the reasons why
it's hard to lighten AD load by getting other people to do
reviews -- the expectation is that AD's will actually review
the documents they approve, at least to some extent.
I think that talk about "expanding the IESG" is approaching
the problem along the wrong tack. Rather than making the
management structure more top-heavy, why not introduce an
additional layer? Specifically, I'm thinking of a model in
which AD's would appoint some number of "deputy AD's" who
would review and comment on (assigned) documents in the AD's
place. This is somewhat more formal than the current
directorate model, in which directorate members may assist
with reviews but the AD still has to personally review every
document (or perhaps, 50% of all documents, depending on how
work is divided in areas with two AD's).
This is how large organizations scale management tasks -- they
introduce layers of indirection and abstraction.
Ietf mailing list