The concept of Technical Supervisors could be tried on two or three working groups and refined based on experience. Initially the supervisors might be appointed by the AD and confirmed by IESG; eventually there might be a separate mechanism for nominating and vetting potential supervisors. Ideally a working group would keep the same supervisor as long as it is chartered, though it would be possible to change a WG's supervisor - particularly one who wasn't doing his job well.
Supervising a WG shouldn't require more than say 2 hours per week.
There would need to be some way to recognize the contributions of WG supervisors, and perhaps some incentives for taking on a job with low visibility and minimal creative input.
What you write could probably be accomplished as a 'Technical Advisor' that some WGs have and is listed in the charter pages ?
The key point here is that such technical supervisors should have broad experience (preferably have been on the IESG, or have been exposed to the work, e.g., by being a chair of a WG which produced a lot of documents) to be able to have sufficient cross-area insight.
The most difficult issue would probably be the coordination between the supervisors and chairs, and to a lesser degree, the ADs -- of course depending how much authority and micromanagement of document editors the supervisor would be required to do.
Personally, if each WG had just one "Techical Advisor" which would be committed to reviewing the specifications early, and who would be at the disposal of the chairs if there are doubts, we could be much better off -- especially if a WG wouldn't have experienced chairs.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf