On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, "Eggert, Lars" <lars(_at_)netapp(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger <eburger(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this
situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want
to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is
is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it.
what is "the fix"?
I think part of the fix is to consider more than just the IESG. We need to
take look at the work across the IETF that goes into producing our documents
and see if we can redistribute or reduce that work to lessen the workload on
ADs ... if the goal is, indeed, to reduce the time commitment on individual ADs.
The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical
expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to
other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The
reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs
go over all documents before they go out.
But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality in
the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work rather
than concentrating it in IESG?
This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve.
But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant
investment of time.
Agreed.
I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD
position into a management job.
Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on
volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates is
awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure when
reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. They're
volunteers, after all.
And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear
discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to
understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If there
is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time needed for
the initial review.
Sure, for any specific issue. My personal experience is that I spend more time
on the ordinary review processes than I do summing up the time on
extra-ordinary technical arguments.
There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so
many documents...
Lars
- Ralph