--On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 11:58 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Part of the plan there was that ADs from other >> areas will step in to help, but I don't believe that has >> worked, > > In my experience -- co-Chair of an ART group, HTTP, and > co-author of a large UTA document that had some last-minute > controversies, 6125bis -- it worked just fine. It wasn't > perfect, but the issues were more about slow uptake than > fundamental problems. The trade-offs, so that the IETF could > accommodate maternity leaves, where completely worth it. Rich, For the avoidance of doubt, I completely agree about the accommodation and its appropriateness and worth. I assume your WG ran smoothly. The places where I would argue that things did not work so well involved WGs that needed more attention, either because of issues about specifications that might have conflicted with other IETF work, questions of consensus within the WG, or even questions about inclusion and exclusions that have come up, in other forms, on this list. Due to what I consider superhuman efforts on Murray's part, things have worked out or are in the process of doing so, but very, very, slowly. In places where things got stuck and, in principle, other ADs could have stepped in, And helped to resolve issues, that didn't, AFAICT, happen. And, of course, the IESG could have decided to add that third AD, with appropriate subject matter expertise, much earlier in the process. Given read-in time, whether that would have helped or not is a matter of speculation but, a third AD being seated last March or soon thereafter definitely would have been a different possibility. best, john
