On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > (3) Cullen's note emphasized the reading problems faced by ADs > who are trying to stay on top of all of the documents in their > areas. I think we need to be very careful about that, balancing > permitting the ADs to function/manage effectively and > efficiently with efficient functioning of WGs. Years ago, when > I was trying to do an AD job, I discovered that it was more > important to follow discussions than to read every revision of > every document, leaving it to the WGs and their leadership to be > sure that discussions were properly reflected in revisions and > to bring the issues to my attention when needed. But Cullen > may well work differently than I did (and his results may be > better), so it is important to be sure that we don't upset his > balance and that of others working the way he works. Yep, it is clear to me that many ADs go about managing in different ways and that this diversity in this is a good thing - what works for one AD is not the best for others. Also, I agree we do need to optimize for the WGs getting the work done not optimize for an ADs ability to read it all. I was trying to make the argument that I suspect that some reasonable fraction of the key contributors in RAI are probably participating in 2/3 of the WGs that I am reading thus would have reading loads that were pretty heavy. I don't really know but I hope to ask some of them to keep track for this next meeting. Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf