I do not object to returning to 3 ART ADs.
I agree that it's easier to ask for three than split up the area, even if
splitting up the area would make sense (I don't know if it does).
I also think we need to return ADs to being a 50% commitment.
(And not, as the 20+ year old nomcom joke went... 50% of an 80 hour week)
Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> there are other considerations of course, such as the number and length
> of documents produced, etc., not to speak of taking on other roles or
> tasks for the IESG.
Some people take on tasks they shouldn't.
Others can't stand the crickets and step forward. We see this everytime
a WG asks for a minute taker...
> I do like the suggestion to have some sort of community expectation on
> what a reasonable workload for an AD is, and what the relevant metrics
> could be.
Every nomcom I've been involved in, going back to 2002, has asked candidates
what they were going to do reduce the workload. It seemed (from outside)
like the IESG was getting handle on it, only to have some personel changes
that seems to have reversed things.
Our cross-area review seems ineffective at reducing the AD workload.
The DISCUSSes that come up are often very late in the process.
> I would want to point out though that growing the IESG does have a
> cost, because we expect all ADs to ballot on documents, and that means
> additional comments and potentially discusses. And a larger IESG has a
> larger management overhead and establishing consensus internally may
> become more difficult.
Maybe this is the problem. Maybe we shouldn't expect all ADs to ballot on documents.
Maybe it's a problem that we often only have one Yes.
I'd rather have three Yes, and ten abstain, than one Yes, and 12 Noobjection,
(_but here are my comments_)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
