ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CHANGE THE JOB (was Re: NOMCOM - Time-Critical - Final Call for Nominations)

2013-10-18 14:48:29
On 19/10/2013 04:33, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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.".

OK. Doesn't sound like refusing to consider. Sounds like answering your
question.

So let's take it to the next step because it may be that the current IESG 
cannot
conceive of how an assistant AD would work.

Can you put up a strawman of the job tasks of an assistant AD that we can work
with to discuss whether this has legs? 

This was discussed quite a bit within the IESG in ~2005 and there was some
discussion of Assistant Area Managers in ~2003. In practice, the result
was the strengthening of various directorates and review teams.

Would assistant ADs be appointed and work for sitting ADs, or would they be
NomCom appointments?

Definitely not NomCom, for a whole raft of reasons.

Can't an AD already delegate anything they want (except the responsibility)?

Yes. Just try to find a willing assistant. We'll be looking in the same
pool as we do for WG Chairs and ADs, so it can't just be a matter of
delegating scut work.

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)

There is mileage in that. 

I don't think so. Adding ADs was another approach we discussed
in the 2005/7 timeframe. The problem is that it's hard enough to keep
a 15 member IESG cohesive. I can't imagine how a 29 member IESG
would "steer" anything. Frankly, I think you'd get squabbling.
(As Scott Brim said, we need a strategy. You won't get that from a
group of 29 people.)

I don't think every AD reviews every document. Some
pairs of ADs consciously split the load. Some ADs don't do detailed reviews of
documents in other areas or just focus on specific topics.

But we must get off the idea that document review is the whole of the AD 
load. I
think it is only around 15-20%. Maybe that rises with pursuit of Discusses
(moral: don't raise Discusses). That doesn't mean that other parts of the load
couldn't be shifted.

Reviewing *in itself* may or may not be the dominant load, but it
generates other work, such as arbitration between the reviewing AD
and the authors - which is definitely not always undertaken by the
shepherd. That's why pushing reviewing back to the WG would tend to
reduce the IESG's overall workload (IMNSHO).

I rather like Brian Trammell's suggestion to formalise the reviewer
role more and to improve the tools. If I was an AD today, I'd be delighted
if the tracker pointed me to various reviews (and the author's
responses).

   Brian

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>