--On Friday, October 10, 2014 08:58 +0100 Stewart Bryant
<stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Jari
I wonder whether the change you propose is radical enough to
serve the IETF's needs as we move through greater industry
austerity, structural changes in the industry and as the pace
of change speeds up.
For some time it has been difficult to get companies to
release some of their best engineers to AD duty. This
difficulty is compounded by the need to find engineers
who are also skilled managers, talented communicators,
and have a technical span that covers not only their
own area but who have sufficient knowledge of the
other areas to understand the implications of wider
issues on the work they are responsible for.
I wonder whether it is time to consider more of a team
approach to area management with perhaps one AD
...
Stewart,
Let me extend your suggestion in another direction, not to
support that direction (I have mixed feelings at best) but to
follow your lead in trying to open up the thinking and
discussion a bit. Many of us have observed over the years
that, as the community changes, the pool of people who can and
do volunteer for the IESG keeps getting narrower. I have
attributed part of that to various impulses to expand the job,
expansions that have the side effect of excluding anyone with
limited travel support and equivalent resources and/or time to
spend on the IETF.
Many other standards bodies have eased the management and
administrative burdens on volunteer leaders by moving toward
secretariats (and document editing and production processes)
that have significant technical skill and that manage much of
the standardization process other than decisions about creation
of new groups and projects and determination of consensus.
The IETF has steadily resisted going in that direction except
for the RFC Editor function. We've taken some tiny steps in
that direction in recent years by using secretariat staff as
minute-takers for some bodies but we could, in principle at
least, shift a lot more. There are many reasons for the
resistance. Some are probably still valid, others may not be.
A choice to move more in the "strong, technically-able,
secretariat" direction is not all or nothing -- perhaps there
are some tasks that we should be moving out of the IESG entirely
except for oversight.
In the light of the recent discussion about increases in the
meeting fees, I should note that expanding the secretariat's
role and increasing the skills required would certainly not be
free (or even cheap). But, if we are reaching the point at
which the burdens and workload for ADs are finally being
recognized as a problem that needs solving, perhaps it is time
to consider something along those lines.
john
Note that the above could be applied either separately from your
suggestion or in parallel to it.