On 10/21/2013 07:31 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: > To the question of splitting the document reviews from the working > group "management" tasks: When I was an AD, I found the document > reviews to be very useful in figuring out what was going on in other > areas that might be related to working groups in the area I was > responsible for, and in calibrating expectations for documents to > come out of my area's working groups. > > If the document review and working group management roles were > split, I don't know how the AD doing working group management > would maintain broader awareness to avoid too much overlap or > conflict between WGs, or to know what the relevant things to > look for are in a MIB document, requirements document, etc. that > their WGs are producing, before sending them to IETF LC. Certainly > they could find other ways to do this than reviewing every document > and sitting in the entire telechat though ... I think that's a point worth making. The purpose of the IESG is not to educate ADs, but one side-effect of the document review is just that, and it does help - I think I'm less of a dummy about stuff that goes on elsewhere in the IETF as a result, and I think that an IESG that's more educated in that way is likely to be a lot better on the whole. S.