On Thursday, April 28, 2005 06:28:48 PM -0400 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
[...]
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often
enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some
other WG.
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on
documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments
as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by
others.
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.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf