On 19/10/2013 04:33, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> I have asked you and other ADs several times if Assistant ADs would help. >> The answer I got was "not really, but a well run directorate really helps.". > > OK. Doesn't sound like refusing to consider. Sounds like answering your > question. > > So let's take it to the next step because it may be that the current IESG cannot > conceive of how an assistant AD would work. > > Can you put up a strawman of the job tasks of an assistant AD that we can work > with to discuss whether this has legs? This was discussed quite a bit within the IESG in ~2005 and there was some discussion of Assistant Area Managers in ~2003. In practice, the result was the strengthening of various directorates and review teams. > Would assistant ADs be appointed and work for sitting ADs, or would they be > NomCom appointments? Definitely not NomCom, for a whole raft of reasons. > Can't an AD already delegate anything they want (except the responsibility)? Yes. Just try to find a willing assistant. We'll be looking in the same pool as we do for WG Chairs and ADs, so it can't just be a matter of delegating scut work. >> Why not double the number of ADs in each area and instead of >> every AD reviewing every draft, have 2 ADs from each area >> review each draft? (Cut the AD hours in half somehow) > > There is mileage in that. I don't think so. Adding ADs was another approach we discussed in the 2005/7 timeframe. The problem is that it's hard enough to keep a 15 member IESG cohesive. I can't imagine how a 29 member IESG would "steer" anything. Frankly, I think you'd get squabbling. (As Scott Brim said, we need a strategy. You won't get that from a group of 29 people.) > I don't think every AD reviews every document. Some > pairs of ADs consciously split the load. Some ADs don't do detailed reviews of > documents in other areas or just focus on specific topics. > > But we must get off the idea that document review is the whole of the AD load. I > think it is only around 15-20%. Maybe that rises with pursuit of Discusses > (moral: don't raise Discusses). That doesn't mean that other parts of the load > couldn't be shifted. Reviewing *in itself* may or may not be the dominant load, but it generates other work, such as arbitration between the reviewing AD and the authors - which is definitely not always undertaken by the shepherd. That's why pushing reviewing back to the WG would tend to reduce the IESG's overall workload (IMNSHO). I rather like Brian Trammell's suggestion to formalise the reviewer role more and to improve the tools. If I was an AD today, I'd be delighted if the tracker pointed me to various reviews (and the author's responses). Brian