One David opines
- we need two more people out of the community who are going to spend
a lot of their time on the administrative side of our organization
instead of producing real work for the IETF.
ADs do not have to stop doing useful work - many ADs (and even a
chair
or two) have done useful technical work while doing teh AD role
- IETF documents will receive more scrutiny in the IESG. While this
could be considered a good thing, there has been a significant
amount of backlash in the community that enough is enough. I for one
believe that we currently already provide enough review, and possibly
already too much.
I assume you mean 2 more people looking at things
I'm not sure this will make a significant difference to the flow
through the IESG which I always found to be more dependent on
the pickyest AD not the number of ADs
- Management research has shown that optimal group sizes are in
general quite a bit smaller than the current IESG. In fact, I see
already significant strains within the IESG due to our group size.
imo - the size of the IESG has been more than some would consider
ideal for quite a while, I do not think that adding two more ADs
will do additional harm to its functionality - I think the more
important issue is how the IESG operates & reviews things - maybe
things have changed since I was on the IESG but in those days
there were only a few ADs that were consistently active on the
mailing list when we were discussing "big" issues - a few more
active folk would actually have helped in those days
An IESG that doesn't operate efficiently is not in the benefit of the IETF.
agreed, but imo, that problem is already there and is
quite independent of the number of ADs
I believe it is very dangerous to add an area before addressing the
issues associated with a larger IESG
fwiw, I disagree with this because I think that the proposal
will add people who can dedicate more attention to this set
of WGs and I think that is a good thing - see above, I think
the optimal size may have been exceeded a while back but
I think that adding two additional folk would produce
more positives than negatives at this point
Another approach could be to do serious surgery on how the IESG
operates to make it a more scalable group.
I think this should be done (and have proposed some ideas
in the past) but I expect it to take quite a while and I'd like
to get focused attention on this (conceptionial) area in the
meantime
Another David opines
If we applied much more strict quality, relevance and timeliness
measures to the existing IETF load, we would probably get rid of
1/3 to 1/2 of our current activities. And possibly more.
that is an option, but I expect that the level of IETF work would
not change much, the work would just be distributed among
fewer WGs (but I do not doubt that some number of existing WGs
should be closed for one reason or another)
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf