Re: IESG workload problem (Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? )

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
>> I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
>> possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and having
>> sub-ADs report to them.
> draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel, published October 2003, proposed
> something of that sort.
> 
> Last trace of discussion I could find with Google was the Geneva IESG
> retreat in 2005 (?), with the quote:
> 
> "We discussed whether there was a need to formalize this into a
> two-level delegation system, but concluded that there was no workload
> advantage in formally changing the primary role of the Area Directors."
> 
> I still don't believe that anything significantly less radical will make
> a significant difference to the "IESG workload problem". 

Agreed - perhaps 3-level. ;-)

> But at the
> moment, the IESG/IETF interface doesn't seem to be in "immediate crisis"
> mode, so I guess we'll survive another year.

That depends on who you ask; IMO, the dearth of certain communities in
the IESG and IAB has been a continuing cause for concern.

Joe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]