> Why isn't a larger number of "ADs" - or, more specifically, removing the > review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution > here? The more ADs there are, the more things get bogged down at the IESG level. ADs need to come to a mutual understanding about what are reasonable criteria for acceptance of a document (in general and/or for a specific document), and this is harder when you have more people who have to agree. More ADs also mean that telechats take longer. Also, the more ADs there are to provide some kind of "guidance" to a WG, the more confusing things become for that group. It would be a bit like a business having multiple managers with direct authority over the same employee - if the managers don't coordinate well the employees get caught in the middle. Moving the process to a real review group at best just moves the problem - since the WG is ultimately interested in getting the documents by the review group, those individuals become the people whom the WGs will consider their managers. So the IESG either becomes irrelevant (in which case we have essentially moved the IESG's functionality to the review group) or it starts trying to produce meta- advice - something close to architectural guidance (in which case it overlaps IAB's role). Note that I didn't say that it couldn't be done, I said it was a difficult problem. For our current management structure there's an optimal number of ADs. Too few and they're spread too thin, too many and they spend too much time coordinating, trying to compromise, and generally trying to discuss things. I think we're pretty close to that number, perhaps a bit over that number. Two ADs per area seems to be almost managable and to have some advantages over a situation where some areas have only one AD, though if the area is small and non-contentious a single AD can probably do the job. If you try to create a different structure that involves more people, it's a losing game unless you figure out a way to minimize the need for those people to coordinate with one another. If you divide them up too much, you risk inconsistent review or inadequate cross-area review. You might end up with some benefits - like higher quality documents - because you end up with a structure that forces the organization to establish better and more specific criteria for standards acceptance. You might also end up creating more delay in producing standards output because it takes time to establish and document those criteria. But it's not the case that adding more people will inherently reduce workload, and it's quite easy to have everyone's workload increase without actually producing better output or getting more throughput. And again, folks who are serious about reducing organizational overhead need to think seriously about whether we really can afford to support every working group that some group of people want to establish. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf