It's been suggested to me off list that this message came across as sarcastic. That was absolutely not my intention. I though Peter's list was thoughtful and I think that only drastic changes of how we work can seriously tackle the problem. I've been quite shocked recently by the number of substantive and important comments the IESG has made on a couple of drafts I've been involved in. The documents will be much better as a result, but all these points really should have been picked up earlier. See 1A and 1C below, or 1B if you prefer. Regards Brian On 18/10/2013 08:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 18/10/2013 08:10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > ... >> It might be helpful to talk about what could change, such as: > > I've inserted some ideas about how to make such changes possible. > >> 1. Less/no time on document reviews. > > 1A. All WGs do a near-perfect job on their drafts, including > complete management of cross-area reviews. > > 1B. Lower the current bar of near-perfection for document approval. > > 1C. IESG is allowed to reject a document as "Not ready" without > detailed explanation. > >> 2. Less time managing working groups. > > 2A. All WG Chairs to do a near-perfect job. > > 2B. Quickly replace failing WG Chairs. > > 2C. Summary closure of failing WGs. > >> 3. Fewer working groups to manage. > > 3A. IESG refuses the majority of proposed WGs. > > 3B. See 2C. > >> 4. Fewer "extra" tasks (e.g., interfacing with other SDOs). > > 4A. Leave liaisons entirely to the designated liaison managers. > > 4B. Replace failing liaison managers. (IAB job) > > 4C. Simply refuse other extra tasks. > >> 5. Less/no involvement with BoFs and other early-stage efforts. > > 5A. IAB spends less time on admin/politics and more time on Architecture, > including BOFs. Also see 3A. > >> 6. Less/no involvement with creating the schedule. > > [I'm not sure that will work. ADs are uniquely placed to > identify clashes and overlaps.] > > Brian >