--On Sunday, 20 October, 2013 21:47 +0800 Loa Andersson
<loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu> wrote:
Yoav,
I was very tempted to just respond "+1", but since I often
told people
that they should do more than so.
Folks,
I agree (mostly) with Yoav, but believe that we could (at
least in some
cases) find people that would take these jobs. However; I'm
also fairly
convinced that is also the people we don't want to have on
those jobs.
FWIW, I think a separation is plausible if that was what we
wanted to do. That is very different from endorsing Abdussalam's
suggestion or the reasoning (if "I don't like" is reasoning)
behind it. The advantages are clear and have been discussed
before, including both reducing the workload on any one set of
individuals enough that maybe we could get more people to serve
and eliminating the inherent conflict in loyalties between
taking the lead in establishing a WG and its charter, selecting
and overseeing its leadership, managing it in other ways, and
being expected to be its lead advocate to the rest of the IESG
on the one hand and providing a critical review of its work on
the other.
I note that the roles of managing/steering and document review
and approval were originally separated (with the latter
belonging to the IAB under the old structure). The problem with
that model at that time was that the IAB got out of touch.
Maybe, in retrospect, we had the right problem diagnosis but
partially the wrong solution.
Because working together with others on final document reviews
and providing a final verification that all necessary bits are
in place shouldn't require nearly the job-learning time that the
IESG/AD role does, one could consider asking members of that
review body to serve only a year or maybe six months, and
possibly relax the meeting attendance requirements, either of
which should vastly increase the pool of plausible volunteers,
including some people we would very much like to have in those
jobs but who can't take on the IESG workload or long-term
commitment.
For an earlier and somewhat different take on this issue and a
variation on a proposal, see the long-expired
draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.
I think AB demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of
how the
IETF works; I don't think we need to discuss it further.
While I agree about the lack of understanding part (and even
more strongly about proposals rooted in what some individual
says he or she "...always don't like..." rather than a real
understanding of the IETF or organizational and SDO
decision-making generally), let's not fall into the trap of
dismissing an idea because of where it seemed to come from. Not
only is a stopped clock correct twice a day, but the separation
idea is not original (it wasn't even original when the draft
mentioned above was posted in 2005).
best.
john