Agreed, reviewing documents can be separated out.
There's a lot of technical expertise able to review documents, but outside the
WG chair/AD/IESG formal hierarchy (and in very different timezones) that may be
able to provide document reviews. Provided they never have to go on concalls.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Ted Lemon [ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com]
Sent: 21 October 2013 00:15
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: John C Klensin; IETF Discuss
Subject: Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG
On Oct 20, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
The high-order bit is whether we can separate the functions of
(a) steering the work of the IETF and (b) applying final quality
control to the documents. At the moment, these two jobs are bound
up with each other in the IESG.
It's worth noting that there is a synergy between steering, managing working
groups and reviewing documents; if you separate out document review, some of
what IESG members need to engage in steering and managing may go away.
BTW, steering doesn't mean dictating the direction the IETF goes; it means
being aware of issues that are cropping up, identifying themes that are common,
and trying to make people who have less of a bird's-eye view aware of them.
It's not clear to me that you can get this view without consuming a fairly
significant amount of time. Joel's two hours a day is probably enough, but I
wouldn't want to see it go a whole lot less than that.