-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
Why isn't a larger number of "ADs" - or, more specifically, removing the
review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
here?
1. the repeated assessment has been that the aggregate size of the iesg is at
its limit, for getting anything done.
I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to
move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute the
reviews and collect and interpret the results.
2. if the work being done has too much effort on the wrong tasks, it does not
help things to have more people doing the wrong things.
I agree on this; IMO, if the ADs spend too much time reviewing, then
that's self-correcting - review less. I've never understood the 'review'
portion of this; I do understand the coordination with the IETF, but the
review is supposed to happen at the lower levels inside the WGs.
I.e., either the ADs are "PC chairs" or not involved in a PC at all; I
don't see their role as PC members.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCbtaTE5f5cImnZrsRAp3ZAKCU9QjODBo96RJ6Mp9/IfJl7bozLQCdGPA9
QsG5zi+5+wA+xYDSfsCSC+s=
=eWwq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf