On Oct 17, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 18/10/2013 08:26, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
...
some ideas to decrease the work load
1) Limit on working groups in each area
2) Less review of documents our outsource reviews
3) Lower the voting threshold for document to pass
It's already pretty low, considering that one valid meaning
of 'No objection' is 'I trust the sponsoring AD'. That
option should perhaps be used more often.
idea: 3 Yes votes overwrite 1 Discuss
4) Reduce hurdles in processing
Please be specific.
Charter updates take too long and take strange turns.
Easier to kill bad documents by outright
rejection of Publication Requests.
5) Assign tasks to different bodies
The problem with that is that more bodies need more volunteers,
so the problem is not guaranteed to go away. But as we've said
*many* times, truly delegating document review would make a big
difference.
Well we have GenArt and Security review teams, they and similar bodies
could do initial processing of Publication requests.
6) More competent WG chairs
7) Pick AD's that are less likely to nit pick documents
8) ignore process nazi's and streamline process.
Again, please be specific. For example, ignoring dissent and consensus
forming will generally speaking increase the workload in the long run.
We had the long standing down-ref problem, it went away, but something like that
keeps creeping up again and again. Someone say we can not do "X" because
document "Y" says so.
9) Ignore external bodies
We can't. But we can insist that liaison is handled by the
liaison managers.
10) Cut the number of AD's fewer people fewer arguments
You really can't do that without dramatically cutting the number
of WGs. If we had 50 WGs we'd have fewer ADs, or their workloads
would be much less.
For example last years Nomcom had hard time to find a Transport AD,
why do all area's have to have 2 other than balance?
Olafur