--On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 11:04 +0000 Samir Srivastava <srivastava_samir@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > In the area where delay is unexpectedly more, there we should > increase no of AD's. AD's should give quality time in reviews. Actually, at least beyond some point, that does not work either. It is important that the IESG be small enough to be able to function as a small team, discussing issues with each other and, ideally, educating each other on them. If you look at the number of WGs per AD at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/, you get, with a bit of rounding and assumptions about rounding, 3 5 7 7 8 9 14 and, with one AD on leave, 36 (even if both were fully available, they would get the "prize" at 18 each) Even if other ADs are stepping in to take some of the load (as they are), they generally do not have the Area-specific expertise for which the overloaded ADs were, at least in part, selected. Yes, we might be able to add one more AD or maybe even two without causing serious damage (although I gather some would strongly disagree) but, ultimately, if more than one or two of the current ADs are overloaded, I think the arithmetic dictates that we take one of two drastic steps: (i) instruct the Nomcom to stop selecting ADs who cannot devote essentially full time to the job or (ii) start aggressively pushing back on additional WGs and raise the threshold for approving them. The former would have its own serious disadvantages, including reinforcing the concerns of those who feel that the IETF is at risk of becoming a place where only those with strong large company support can effectively participate, especially in leadership roles. And, so far, I haven't observed much enthusiasm in the community for the latter: when a new WG is proposed, we have discussions about, e.g., details of the proposed charter but rarely ask if the WG's topic area and likely outputs are important enough to a better Internet to justify more load on ADs and the community. --john
