Re: IESG Area Structure and Last night's missing question

Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
    > until the community' communicates to the nomcom, iesg, and iab that a
    > change to a more reality and implementation based culture is needed, the
    > ITUification of the ietf will continue; we will have even more managers,
    > document inflators, ....  until we send a message by replacing some
    > underperforming wg chairs, moribund wgs will abound.

I think that I can say that the nomcom has heard this in multiple ways.
What we can *do* about it, is another question.

The nomcom used to ask the question:
    "The AD job is a 50% commitment" (and the joke was: 50% of an 80 hour week)
    "Are you going to be able to make this level of commitment?"

The nomcom now asks a different question:
    "The AD job is supposed to be a 50% commitment, but has grown.
    What will you do to return it to a 50% commitment?"

There is a big concern that you and others have expressed that we are only
able to have ADs from big companies, that small companies can not afford the
time to provide an AD... or a WG chair... or a core document editor.

So putting the quality where the quality belongs: at the Internet Standards
level, is I think, important.

    > the nomcom and the i* need to take some mean pills.  and we need to tell
    > them it's not only ok, but demanded.

The nomcom doesn't replace WG chairs, it replaces ADs that don't replace WG
chairs... but the set of people that can effectively (i.e. are "confirmable")
become ADs is... the set of WG chairs, plus some secretaries.   So another
reason to replace chairs more often is so that more people become experienced
enough to become ADs.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature