Hi Adrian,
I have asked you and other ADs several times if Assistant ADs would help.
The answer I got was "not really, but a well run directorate really helps.".
I think the IESG does an excellent job of reviewing documents.
I would not want to increase throughput by simply reducing quality.
But I know ADs who have said they wish the job was only 40 hours/week,
because it can be more than that.
Staffing critical-path full-time positions with the best people
in the industry for free isn't as easy at it used to be.
Why not double the number of ADs in each area and instead of
every AD reviewing every draft, have 2 ADs from each area
review each draft? (Cut the AD hours in half somehow)
Andy
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Adrian Farrel
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
John,
At least for the one of those proposals
I remember best, the IESG simply refused to consider it.
One of the benefits of the way the IESG turns over is that tomorrow's IESG
is
not today's.
On the other hand, the IESG serves the community as well as providing a
modicum
of leadership.
If the community is insistent on some point, the IESG had better wake up.
In
other words, if you can build a rough consensus in the community for some
change
whether technical or procedural, what the IESG thinks is not significant
beyond
pointing out flaws and providing polish.
I am not convinced by "the IESG refused to consider." Change the IESG to
one
that will consider, or better yet, bring fully formed consensus for change
to
the IESG and have it happen.
Adrian (optimist today - medication must be working)