Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

Russ,

I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we are short
of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint technically expert ADs
who are not deep experts in the specific area. It's a practical
matter.

Regards
   Brian

On 04/03/2013 15:26, Russ Housley wrote:
> The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents.  Why?  Their job is to 
> make sure that the process was followed.
>
> The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too.  But, the IESG also 
> has a quality check job.  I would hate for this debate to lead to a step 
> toward the ITU model.
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> > 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