I'm replying to John's note rather than somewhere in the thread
because he's given me a good subject line for what I want to say
at this point.
We have to be very careful here to make coherent sets of changes
that taken together make things better rather than worse.
It is unthinkable to institute a system in which ADs can be removed
for not meeting criteria that weren't defined when they were
appointed. It's elementary in human resource management that
you only measure people against metrics that they signed up for.
Very specifically, the existing ADs (except me) were told by the
NomCom to expect a half time job. Well, it's a "half time" job that
includes managing 10 WGs on average and reviewing 400 to 500
documents a year. It's impossible. So, whatever we think of the
details of John's two drafts, and I have *lots* of detailed
comments I could make, we can only reasonably solve the two
equations simultaneously: make the IESG workload fit the job
description, and make the ADs accountable.
Further along the line of coherent changes, I don't want to see
our process documents becoming even more of a patchwork than
they already are. So a goal needs to be: instead of ending up
with yet more patches to RFC 2026 and patches to RFC 3777,
let's design a document roadmap that leads to a simple and
coherent set of process documents.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf