----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To: "'Peter Saint-Andre'" <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>;
<dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
Cc: "'John C Klensin'" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "'IETF Discuss'"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:36 PM
The IESG defines the job and the IESG 'operates' the model. So
yes,
formally the IESG controls this issue.
Mutter.
I suppose the seated IESG defines what it does.
Or more precisely, each member of the IESG decides what (sadly) he
should do to
best serve in the role.
But don't see the "job requirements" put out by NomCom as the IESG
placing
requirements.
The NomCom asks the IESG what skills and tasks are needed in the view
of the
current IESG.
The IESG serves up this information and NomCom can do with it as it
likes.
More important, the community can and should tell the NomCom what it
wants the
IESG to do and not do.
However...
Nomcom can apply pretty much whatever criteria it wants to the
selection
process and Nomcom has been know to have some private negotiations
with
the IESG. Nothing as profound as the change we are suggesting,
but
still...
Exactly.
It would be better for the IESG to take the initiative here and
formally
and publicly re-define the job, but it has so far ignored such
requests.
Which cuts into what Peter says since from where I sit there are many
calls on
the time of an AD and it would be useful to know which tasks the
community would
like me to not do (I think that I and my chief sponsor would both be
happy if I
spent more time working for them and less working as an AD).
It might be helpful to talk about what could change, such as:
1. Less/no time on document reviews.
Right. Ask:
Do the reviews currently done by ADs make a difference to the quality
of
individual documents or the overall canon?
Adrian
Depends on the AD! I do not know if you are aware of it but yours do; I
think that what you have done on the MPLS list has improved the quality
almost beyond measure but of the lists I track, you do stand out as a
shining beacon (so much so that I do worry sometimes that you will be
unable to keep it up). On other lists, the AD review is less, sometimes
much less; perhaps they looked and found the I-D already to
be of good quality but then IETF Last Call comes along and the I-D
is found wanting.
I think that as a general engineering rule, the earlier things are got
right, the lower the overall cost, however the last is measured, so
could the comments you make have been made earlier, e.g. prior to WGLC,
by someone else, then I think that the IETF would be in a stronger place
(but how to do that I do not know).
Tom Petch
<snip>