-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Crocker wrote: >> 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? > > 1. the repeated assessment has been that the aggregate size of the iesg is at > its limit, for getting anything done. I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute the reviews and collect and interpret the results. > 2. if the work being done has too much effort on the wrong tasks, it does not > help things to have more people doing the wrong things. I agree on this; IMO, if the ADs spend too much time reviewing, then that's self-correcting - review less. I've never understood the 'review' portion of this; I do understand the coordination with the IETF, but the review is supposed to happen at the lower levels inside the WGs. I.e., either the ADs are "PC chairs" or not involved in a PC at all; I don't see their role as PC members. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCbtaTE5f5cImnZrsRAp3ZAKCU9QjODBo96RJ6Mp9/IfJl7bozLQCdGPA9 QsG5zi+5+wA+xYDSfsCSC+s= =eWwq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf