On Thursday, April 28, 2005 06:28:48 PM -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. [...] And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG.
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others.
Exactly right. We select AD's based on their technical expertise, and expect them to use that expertise in reviewing documents that come their way. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to lighten AD load by getting other people to do reviews -- the expectation is that AD's will actually review the documents they approve, at least to some extent.
I think that talk about "expanding the IESG" is approaching the problem along the wrong tack. Rather than making the management structure more top-heavy, why not introduce an additional layer? Specifically, I'm thinking of a model in which AD's would appoint some number of "deputy AD's" who would review and comment on (assigned) documents in the AD's place. This is somewhat more formal than the current directorate model, in which directorate members may assist with reviews but the AD still has to personally review every document (or perhaps, 50% of all documents, depending on how work is divided in areas with two AD's).
This is how large organizations scale management tasks -- they introduce layers of indirection and abstraction.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf