--On Sunday, 20 October, 2013 21:47 +0800 Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > Yoav, > > I was very tempted to just respond "+1", but since I often > told people > that they should do more than so. > > Folks, > > I agree (mostly) with Yoav, but believe that we could (at > least in some > cases) find people that would take these jobs. However; I'm > also fairly > convinced that is also the people we don't want to have on > those jobs. FWIW, I think a separation is plausible if that was what we wanted to do. That is very different from endorsing Abdussalam's suggestion or the reasoning (if "I don't like" is reasoning) behind it. The advantages are clear and have been discussed before, including both reducing the workload on any one set of individuals enough that maybe we could get more people to serve and eliminating the inherent conflict in loyalties between taking the lead in establishing a WG and its charter, selecting and overseeing its leadership, managing it in other ways, and being expected to be its lead advocate to the rest of the IESG on the one hand and providing a critical review of its work on the other. I note that the roles of managing/steering and document review and approval were originally separated (with the latter belonging to the IAB under the old structure). The problem with that model at that time was that the IAB got out of touch. Maybe, in retrospect, we had the right problem diagnosis but partially the wrong solution. Because working together with others on final document reviews and providing a final verification that all necessary bits are in place shouldn't require nearly the job-learning time that the IESG/AD role does, one could consider asking members of that review body to serve only a year or maybe six months, and possibly relax the meeting attendance requirements, either of which should vastly increase the pool of plausible volunteers, including some people we would very much like to have in those jobs but who can't take on the IESG workload or long-term commitment. For an earlier and somewhat different take on this issue and a variation on a proposal, see the long-expired draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00. > I think AB demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of > how the > IETF works; I don't think we need to discuss it further. While I agree about the lack of understanding part (and even more strongly about proposals rooted in what some individual says he or she "...always don't like..." rather than a real understanding of the IETF or organizational and SDO decision-making generally), let's not fall into the trap of dismissing an idea because of where it seemed to come from. Not only is a stopped clock correct twice a day, but the separation idea is not original (it wasn't even original when the draft mentioned above was posted in 2005). best. john