One item to consider is to lower the work load of the AD, in particular
in reviewing docs towards of the end of projects. Issues and dilemmas
are piled on. I think one approach to lowering appeals, for example,
is to address unresolved delicate WG issues much faster, in particular
the tough ones that reach an impasse and no normal "Rough" WG
consensus. This is where the AD may and has helped but I also suggest
we have a group of peers that can quickly resolve (make decisions) the
more delicate WG issues that tends to hold back progress and piled more
work on people to do which runs the risk of lower quality result and
also apathy (give up on the work). It may better to ignore it to avoid
endorsing a controversial direction. I have had two ADs in the past
both apologize for not dealing with issues (reading the I-D) a lot sooner.
Perhaps, we should look at some of the IETF activities that makes it
less appealing to even "apply" for the "job."
On 3/4/2013 8:07 AM, Eggert, Lars 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