Hi Alia, On 27/12/2014 08:59, Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 27/12/2014 06:46, Alia Atlas wrote: ... >>>> I'm a little bit surprised that the RTG area load has gone up >>>> like this, and so quickly. Is it the various SDN things that >>>> are pushing this, or is it >>>> that the RTG area currently has the most enthusiasm for YANG >>>> work? >>>> >>> >>> It's a mixture of things combined with RTG already being at the >>> very top edge of workload. In RTG we have/will have about 21 >>> active WGs; if we add a third routing AD, then RTG will absorb 3 >>> WGs from INT. Granted that one is not active and may be merged >>> in, we are still looking at about 23 WGs for RTG with a more >>> average load being about 8 WGs/AD. >> >> So let's be frank about this. Today (excluding the General Area AD >> with his crippling load of 1 WG) we have 129 WGs for 14 Ads, >> which is 9.2 WGs/AD. That is clearly too many, so should there be >> a target ratio and a plan for reaching it? >> > > No, as you well know, it depends on the size and business of the > WGs, the management load, etc., as well as the number. Clearly we > don't want to not create new WGs when appropriate nor to discourage > existing useful work. Of course, an average is only an average, but the point is: we've had about 125 WGs for at least ten years now, and we've had over-burdened ADs for all that time. That seems to be a fundamental problem, regardless of the sort of adjustments the IESG is currently proposing. There are two words in your second sentence above implying a value judgment: "appropriate" and "useful". Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the only way to truly manage the IESG workload is by raising the bar for "appropriate" and "useful". (The same applies to the bar for a WG to adopt a particular work item.) > This is a question of balancing load and there is a surge of > YANG-related work which does require more focused management. Is it > better to have 2 ADs at 100%-120% and others with less load when the > size of the IESG would be otherwise reduced. Are you suggesting > that suggesting another routing AD to take load from RTG and INT is a > bad idea compared to dropping the IESG to 14 & eventually 13? No, I was specifically trying to avoid being specific. I think we have a general long-term problem. It's entirely appropriate for the IESG to propose workload re-balancing to deal with the current workload. I may have some quibbles, but it's the IESG's decision. > Are you simply concerned with the dynamics of how many ADs have the > various perspectives on the IESG? > > Obviously, we are looking for feedback and opinions and ideas. Do > you have other well thought out suggestions? In terms of the long-term problem, unless I am mistaken, neither the IESG nor the community has ever said much about how to make the judgment calls that new work is useful and appropriate for the IETF. We've got a very good document to help BOF proponents (RFC 5434) but I don't think we've ever tackled the next bit: deciding whether this work should be chartered? One result of that is that proponents who have what they think is a successful BOF are sometimes very puzzled and frustrated by their failure to form a WG. Another result is that it's a bit harder for the IESG to say "no" than it would be if the decision criteria were a bit more transparent. A third aspect is that every new IESG member has to discover for herself how this vital bit of the process works on the inside. I think my suggestion is that to have any serious hope of controlling the workload *in the long term*, we need to have something (it could be an IESG statement, it could be an RFC) the stakes out a position on what it means for a WG or work item to be judged appropriate and useful. Regards Brian