At 12:36 17-10-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Right. Ask:
Do the reviews currently done by ADs make a difference to the quality of
individual documents or the overall canon?
The short answer is yes. It also ends up as more work for the Area Director.
Would we be happy to publish RFCs with lower quality?
Yes.
Are there other ways to reliably improve the quality (like, for example, the
community doing proper reviews of their own work)?
Yes, there is a DISCUSS position which can be invoked. :-)
Could discussions of Discusses go more smoothly and take less effort?
Yes. A discussion of a DISCUSS should not generate more mail to iesg@.
Could WG chairs somehow (magically?) take more responsibility and
get stuff done
(some chairs do)?
If I was a working group chair under your responsibility and you did
not expect me to get stuff done, I don't have any reason to get stuff done.
Note:
A few of my WGs/chairs take most of my management time.
There was a very good WG secretary in your area. If it was my call I
would have him doing an EDU tutorial.
Should an AD close a WG with a small number of people doing productive work
slowly?
Yes.
Should we refuse to open new WGs until we have finished other work?
Yes, as it affects scheduling.
Could we reduce the number of WGs per AD by increasing the number of ADs?
No, that would generate too many DISCUSSes. :-)
Should BoF proponents be left to flounder or should an AD help them
to get their
work going?
Somebody would have to help them. It does not have to be an Area Director.
Is a BoF shepherd from the IAB enough?
No, see above.
Could other people from the community fill this role?
Yes. Note that taking the same people and giving them more work is a
good reason not to volunteer.
Please do tell us what you don't want us to do, and what you would
like us to do
less.
I would like you to work 20 hours a week instead of 80 hours a
week. If you ask me whether you can work 21 hours a week because the
fate of the free world depends on it, my answer would be "no".
At 12:46 17-10-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
workload). We'd like document shepherds to take on more
responsibility at the start, in the middle, and during the review
process. Sometimes we see glimmerings of this happening.
Area Directors can do something about the above. :-)
At 13:21 17-10-2013, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
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?
There is a wide breath of technologies for an area. There is a low
probability that a person can have the area-wide expertise. Having
two persons also means that if one person misses the issue the other
person might catch it.
At 13:48 17-10-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
Working group chairs are not raw material. They are the result of
growing in the organization, and they are an extremely valuable part
of the organization. Growing more working group chairs should be a
serious priority of the IETF, and our failure to do this well is
very much part of the AD overwork problem.
Yes. It is not possible to grow people overnight. The educational
efforts would benefit from a serious review.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy