ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Looking for Area Directors Under Lampposts

2015-11-12 11:10:35
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Andy Bierman <andy(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com> 
wrote:



On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Andy Bierman 
<andy(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com>
wrote:



On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Harald Alvestrand <
harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:

On 11/11/2015 08:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 12/11/2015 03:45, Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian,

Were this a reading comprehension test, you'd get a failing grade.
You've misinterpreted or invented, rather than dealing with the plain
text as I wrote it.  It says what I meant.
We disagree profoundly about what your words mean. I don't think it
would be
productive to continue mutual textual analysis.

I do want to say this: We have given the ADs power of decision over
what
gets published. They take this power very seriously; that's intrinsic
in
the way they are selected and appointed. It's the first thing you
learn
as a new AD: the buck stops here. If we want to stop the ADs spending
large
amounts of time on document quality, we have to take away their power
of
decision over what gets published.

<voice=spock>This is not logical.</voice>

If an AD thinks it's his job to get a certain outcome (high quality
documents, for instance), and he can't use an effective means to achieve
the goal (blocking obviously bad documents), he'll either give up in
disgust (bad for him and the community) or try to reach the goal by
other means - which will likely take up more of his time.

In my opinion, the main job of the AD is to get others to do *their* job
- especially to make WG chairs do their job of making the WG produce
high quality drafts that reflect WG consensus and help make the Internet
better. (Yes, that's three wishes.)





Last time this thread came up, I pointed out that delegation isn't a tool
used very effectively by the IESG.  If a WG goes through its entire
charter
and draft development process, and the AD does not know the document
is in terrible shape until the end, then that's a problem.  Either the
AD should
be on top of every draft in every one of their WGs, or they should
delegate
that responsibility to other people, and get help with the job. Waiting
until
the very end to fix problems is the least efficient approach, and the
most
frustrating as well.


Aren't the WG Chairs the ones who should be very familiar with the drafts
in
their WGs and able to see problems?  In Routing, we also have the ability
for
a WG chair to request that the directorate do a "QA review" on a draft;
the
target for that is right at or after WG adoption and then again at WGLC.
It
doesn't solve all problems, but the more we can solve early, the better.



The WG chairs should be on top of every document, but apparently
that doesn't mean the AD will be happy with the result at the end.
The ADs only seem to have time to look at what is done, and not
at what is in the pipeline.  The tail-heavy process is self-perpetuating.


Absolutely.  It's a challenge - in part because of time and in part because
of
the amount of reading required.  On the other hand, I think it's also
something
that can be improved because once one starts reading the drafts early, it
helps
later on.  I'm still working on getting there though.


One of the issues can be the cross-area considerations where an AD has a
bit more sensitivity to what is likely to be of concern and that can be
harder
to clarify.  Several other directorates do allow early reviews and I find
that
to be quite useful.

A serious problem with finding problems late in the process is that
frequently
most of what is possible is clarifications and word-smithing.  It's hard
to fix
fundamentals in something that is already implemented.


I think plenty of normative text gets changed late in the process.
That is better than publishing the draft with errors.  It's not
really a problem, since there should be no expectations of stability
for a work-in-progress.


I'm not as convinced that there are substantial changes, as opposed to
tweaks,
later on.


The idea of assistant area director was mentioned, but immediately
 dismissed.
I had 1 AD tell me offline that the only task he would be willing to
delegate
to an assistant was fetching coffee for him at the IETF.


Everyone varies in how and what they could delegate.  Certainly, that
isn't my
opinion - but I'd also have to think deeply about what I could or should
delegate.


And that's why AD is a full-time job.
I don't know what you should delegate either.


I think that there are or can be things.  It requires thinking through the
work and the
trade-offs of not having as full a perspective.

Regards,
Alia


Regards,
Alia



Andy