At 02:02 PM 9/21/2005, john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
Bill,
>On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
>> If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this
>> would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area
>> would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
>
>Why do you think this would make any difference in practice?
>chances are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if
>either felt that an issue should block publication.
What I meant was that the IESG spends a lot of time on document review.
I don't think anyone has complained that there is not enough document
I for one think that there is not enough document review some times. For
instance, in some cases we have long running discussions on a number of
issues that get resolved in the mailing list and the people involved don't
take the time to thoroughly review documents (I am as guilty as the next
person) because, I guess they are tired of looking at the same document
again and again. The end result is that we have documents in the RFC Ed
queue with another document in the wings called draft-blah-clarifications
(some people might be able to guess what I am referring to -- no offense
intended to the people who put the long hours to do that work -- it is the
reviewers that are at fault).
review. If we add more ADs, then we will be increasing the amount
of document review. Is this something we should need? I think David
put it quite well that scheduling IESG calls, meetings and retreats
is already problematic - adding more ADs will not improve things.
I am curious about the scheduling issues. If the IESG job is a "full-time"
job, why can't the people on IESG find time to meet with each other, f2f or
in telecons; perhaps someone will help me understand that. The other issue
that comes up is time zones. We've had this in the Nomcom and I found out
recently that telecons at odd hours is the norm if you work in some
SDOs. I think these should be non-issues really.
Perhaps the IESG job description should say in part, "you are expected to
work some 35-40 hours a week on IESG stuff, should keep your calendar open
in the months of ... for a retreat, and should be able to participate in
telecons at odd hours." If you remove IESG from that sentence, it probably
is already in many IETFers' job descriptions.
regards,
Lakshminath
Would a re-organization of the current set of areas solve the same
thing?
If the problem is that certain WGs are not getting enough management
time, then would increased usage of Technical Advisors (which is already
done) improve things?
My read of most of the current responses on this thread is that the SIP
& related working groups are feeling pressure in the current Transport
Area, so some re-arrangement is needed. What I haven't seen is how
having more ADs involved would actually improve things.
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf