There is obviously no easy fix. If there was, we would have fixed it,
obviously.
What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on
to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the
process. It is thinking like that, how to do things different, that will get
us out of the bind we have made for ourselves.
Note that I am not married to the idea of expanding the role of directorates. I
am married to the idea that we can think ourselves outside of the box.
On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, "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"?
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. 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.
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.
There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so
many documents...
Lars