> On Jan 25, 2025, at 12:38 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > --On Saturday, January 25, 2025 14:13 -0500 "Andrew G. Malis" > <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> LL, >> >> Being a WG chair seems like hard work. Executing well on the >> objectives in >>> RFC 7282 doesn't always seem like the easiest thing. >> >> >> That's quite correct, but we WG chairs also have ADs to provide >> assistance and advice (and sometimes correction) when necessary. >> There's also a good reason why many WGs have more than one chair, >> and chairs from other WGs help each other out as well (there's a >> WG-chairs list that's sometimes used to discuss such issues). So >> chairs aren't just working in a vacuum. > > Andy, > > No disagreement, but sometimes those things don't work, especially > when ADs end up with enough WGs that it is hard to pay special > attention to any of them and (perhaps as a result) the IESG responds > to issues/problems by saying "we trust our WG Chairs" rather than > intervening or helping. > > john Right. The success of RFC 7282 + WG Chairs + AD + IESG isn’t assured. The hard and effective work of the participants is also needed. Quynh mentioned this in contrast to voting. Seems like a voting system is in one way more clear, but then you have a really big problem of deciding who gets to vote. Switching to voting would change the whole IETF participation structure. I don’t want to touch off a big debate. Just food for thought. LL
