On 9/8/23 15:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
That assumes that ADs need to be very specific subject matter experts, rather than people and process managers. It's exactly this view that is limiting the bandwidth of the IESG.
Not that I disagree about limiting the bandwidth. But, as long
as ADs are expected to conduct technical reviews and pass judgment
on technical soundness of documents, ADs absolutely need to be
subject matter experts. Perhaps they don't need to be as deep
into the specific area of a working group as, say, the major
participants and document authors/editors, but they need to be
able to evaluate for themselves whether a document is sound.
(They also need to be able to evaluate whether reviewers' opinions
are sound, which is sometimes more difficult.)
But the whole "limiting the bandwidth" idea, I think, is assuming
the wrong goal for IETF. IETF's goal should not be to produce
as many RFCs as quickly as possible. (And I wish it would
stop trying to cite number of RFCs as any indication of merit.) IETF's
goal should instead be to produce the documents within its
scope, that are needed most by the Internet community, ensuring
that they have been developed with input from a broad range of
interest, are technically sound, and produce them quickly enough
so that those documents can serve as useful input to their
audiences.
{I think this is moving chairs around the deck, as others have said, but I'm
not opposed to trying it out.}
It is not only rearranging deck chairs (and IETF is starting to
look more and more like the Titanic every day). IMO trying it
out will just waste time, and carry IETF a few years even further
in an unhelpful direction than it has already gone.
And I also don't think that IESG should be the only parties
providing significant input into the future composition or
direction of IESG. IESG and with it IESG have gone badly off the
rails IMO, and it really needs to build IETF consensus before it
tries to make significant changes to its mission or structure.
Keith
