Re: Myths of the IESG: Reading documents is the problem

> There seems to be a common perception that a major time sync for the
> IESG is reviewing documents and writing up comments.
Sam, thanks for pursuing a line of discussion about where AD time is spent.

You've used the same word that I heard in the plenary, namely "reviewing". I'm 
thinking that it was well-chosen, but might be more complicated than it first 
seemed.
While it's good to hear that the basic act of reading and commenting is not 
necessarily the major time sink that one might have thought, perhaps the 
deeper problem is the difference between the role of facilitating IETF efforts 
versus the role of acting like a technical contributor.  That is, Process 
Assistant versus Technical Expert. Both tasks are difficult and both are 
usually necessary.  And the former also requires reasonably good technical 
skills.  But it is very different, indeed, from the latter.
So perhaps the deeper issue with "reviewing" is that Area Directors might be 
spending too much time as technical contributors and not enough helping 
working group chairs and editors ensure timely, solid progress.
When an AD is participating in a working group meeting making technical 
comments, they are not performing in the role of process assistant.  When they 
provide feedback that challenges technical assumptions or state architectural 
preferences, they also are not performing as process assistants.  They are 
acting as technical contributors.  However wonderful their insight, the 
contribution is NOT one of facilitating working group management.
When the AD is the cognizant AD for the working group, then activity that 
looks like technical contribution ought to prompt a question about who is 
minding the shop?  If the working group is operating to perfection, then the 
absence of the cognizant AD as a process assistance is dandy.  And we do have 
such working groups, now and again.
But mostly working groups need all the procedural and project management 
assistance they can get.  Usually they are not run by professional managers -- 
and even when they are, IETF wg management is quite different from corporate 
development team management. So the perspective of an AD who is trying to 
offer process management suggestions and trying to help the chair navigate 
both within and without the working group is typically needed... even when the 
wg chairs are experienced.
What is especially problematic is when the working group has late-stage 
process and project management difficulties, leading to the obvious question 
of what happened in the earlier stage?
Having a non-cognizant AD press late-stage issues leads to the question of why 
they did not pay attention earlier?  If the topic is important enough for them 
to delay the wg output now, why was it not important enough earlier?  If the 
hassle is, really merely tactical or a matter of engineering preference, 
rather than a solid, legitimate claim that the wg output "won't work" or 
"won't scale", then the obvious question is why it is tolerated.
The draft document on "discuss" criteria is a really good example of trying to 
focus on the primary and essential purpose of late-stage review.  But we also 
need to decide how to make early- and mid-stage work go better, and I keep 
thinking it has more to do with focusing on working group productivity than it 
does in having Area Directors operate as active technical contributors.
By way of example:  Having EKR get up on the MASS/DKIM BOF and hassle us about 
threat analysis is downright painful.  But my own experience is that looking 
at that sort of strategic value-proposition and resolving it in the early 
stage has a vast benefit to the rest of the project.  And working groups need 
assistance in constantly looking for those sorts of high-leverage questions to 
ask.
Now I have no doubt that EKR will perform the technical task of commenting on 
the wonderfulness of whatever threat analysis the DKIM group produces.  At 
that point, he's going to be acting as a technical contributor.  However, his 
pressing for the analysis to be done is process assistance.  He is raising a 
strategic question for the group to answer.
--

  d/

ps. Our cognizant AD, Russ Housely, has also been pressing us for the analysis 
but EKR was, as always, more visible and more theatrical. So he's far more fun 
to cite, even without the AD role...
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 +1.408.246.8253
 dcrocker  a t ...
 WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf