Jeff,
To clarify, I was suggesting that we think about something a
little different. Not an expanded IESG (which I agree would be
a poor idea), or "deputy ADs", but a separate body, such that we
had one body charged with management/coordination and another
one charged with "review/approval" and with neither superior to,
or reporting to, the other.
The problems I see with "deputy ADs", review committees,
strengthened directorates, etc., are all, ultimately, the same:
We select very responsible people to serve on the IESG. As
long as they are, and feel, responsible, these additional bodies
or groups may help with the quality of review and may speed it
up, but most ADs, most of the time, will feel a need to still do
the reviews themselves, take responsibility for writeups issued
in their names, etc. And they will have more people to manage.
The only way out of that trap is a separate review body. Of
course, that has its own set of problems and issues, as others
have pointed out, but it would change the time equation and the
management/advocacy/decision conflicts and relationships. I
don't see additional structures that report to the IESG changing
either of those significantly.
john
--On Thursday, 28 April, 2005 20:39 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<jhutz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf