On Oct 17, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18/10/2013 08:26, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: > ... >> some ideas to decrease the work load >> 1) Limit on working groups in each area >> 2) Less review of documents our outsource reviews >> 3) Lower the voting threshold for document to pass > > It's already pretty low, considering that one valid meaning > of 'No objection' is 'I trust the sponsoring AD'. That > option should perhaps be used more often. > idea: 3 Yes votes overwrite 1 Discuss >> 4) Reduce hurdles in processing > > Please be specific. Charter updates take too long and take strange turns. Easier to kill bad documents by outright rejection of Publication Requests. > >> 5) Assign tasks to different bodies > > The problem with that is that more bodies need more volunteers, > so the problem is not guaranteed to go away. But as we've said > *many* times, truly delegating document review would make a big > difference. Well we have GenArt and Security review teams, they and similar bodies could do initial processing of Publication requests. > >> 6) More competent WG chairs >> 7) Pick AD's that are less likely to nit pick documents >> 8) ignore process nazi's and streamline process. > > Again, please be specific. For example, ignoring dissent and consensus > forming will generally speaking increase the workload in the long run. We had the long standing down-ref problem, it went away, but something like that keeps creeping up again and again. Someone say we can not do "X" because document "Y" says so. > >> 9) Ignore external bodies > > We can't. But we can insist that liaison is handled by the > liaison managers. > >> 10) Cut the number of AD's fewer people fewer arguments > > You really can't do that without dramatically cutting the number > of WGs. If we had 50 WGs we'd have fewer ADs, or their workloads > would be much less. For example last years Nomcom had hard time to find a Transport AD, why do all area's have to have 2 other than balance? Olafur