On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The most useful comment I've heard on this thread is that it makes sense to credit the working group chairs as well as the authors of a document in the document at the same level of emphasis. And possibly the ADs as well. I don't know if this would make a difference, but it's interesting, and might be worth the experiment.
But really, the main thing to say about this conversation is that it's a classic example of why the AD's job is so time consuming. We have to monitor these conversations, because otherwise we aren't doing the part of our job that involves listening to the IETF. Having long bikeshed discussions about the woeful brokenness of the AD's job over and over again without any action proposed is expensive.
Most of what's been discussed here has been discussed by the ADs during the recent IESG retreat, and substantial action was taken as a result of the discussion at that retreat. It might be interesting to see if any of what we discussed actually changes anything.
[MB] Can you clue us in as to what "substantial action" has been taken? [/MB]