At 02:02 PM 9/21/2005, john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Bill, >On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this >> would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area >> would be one way to reduce this could be one solution. > >Why do you think this would make any difference in practice? >chances are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if >either felt that an issue should block publication. What I meant was that the IESG spends a lot of time on document review. I don't think anyone has complained that there is not enough document
I for one think that there is not enough document review some times. For instance, in some cases we have long running discussions on a number of issues that get resolved in the mailing list and the people involved don't take the time to thoroughly review documents (I am as guilty as the next person) because, I guess they are tired of looking at the same document again and again. The end result is that we have documents in the RFC Ed queue with another document in the wings called draft-blah-clarifications (some people might be able to guess what I am referring to -- no offense intended to the people who put the long hours to do that work -- it is the reviewers that are at fault).
review. If we add more ADs, then we will be increasing the amount of document review. Is this something we should need? I think David put it quite well that scheduling IESG calls, meetings and retreats is already problematic - adding more ADs will not improve things.
I am curious about the scheduling issues. If the IESG job is a "full-time" job, why can't the people on IESG find time to meet with each other, f2f or in telecons; perhaps someone will help me understand that. The other issue that comes up is time zones. We've had this in the Nomcom and I found out recently that telecons at odd hours is the norm if you work in some SDOs. I think these should be non-issues really.
Perhaps the IESG job description should say in part, "you are expected to work some 35-40 hours a week on IESG stuff, should keep your calendar open in the months of ... for a retreat, and should be able to participate in telecons at odd hours." If you remove IESG from that sentence, it probably is already in many IETFers' job descriptions.
regards, Lakshminath
Would a re-organization of the current set of areas solve the same thing? If the problem is that certain WGs are not getting enough management time, then would increased usage of Technical Advisors (which is already done) improve things? My read of most of the current responses on this thread is that the SIP & related working groups are feeling pressure in the current Transport Area, so some re-arrangement is needed. What I haven't seen is how having more ADs involved would actually improve things. John _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf