Re: IESG Area Structure and Last night's missing question

[Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 7, 2015, at 9:54 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    > We *have* to grow more WG chairs and secretaries and encourage others
    > to try shepherding a draft or more to start learning more about the
    > process.  We also need to have some better training on the *why* behind
    > much of the process, because
    > there's a lot of "one size doesn't fit all" and without understanding
    > the reasons and
    > motivations, it's easy to do the process and fail to meet the goals.

    > I know that I tend to think that we have a lot of the same WG chairs;
    > when I did
    > numbers for Routing, we have 11 new WG chairs out of 45 total since I
    > became an AD.

Yes... but what if you remove Adrian, and Stewart, and other people who have
already been ADs or IAB or ... from the list...

Actually, it's 11 new not including Stewart.  None of those 11 have been ADs or IAB.

Granted, Pat Thaler is active in similar roles in the IEEE.   I can give you the details,

if you'd like ;-)  http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/#rtg  but the point is that this really really

matters.  We have to grow more people into leadership roles and recognize that many

of them won't be interested in the AD role for a long time, if ever.  Every time that a

WG chair is appointed, it's an opportunity for the area, not just the WG.

 

I'm sure some of these involve new WGs, but it's also important to consider the role of an AD as a manager.  With that I mean coaching attempts should be made first to help chairs that are either new to the job or handling a tough WG.  Seeing chairs turn around a WG that is tough can be impressive and may be very helpful to the ongoing success of that WG.  The chairs will be more motivated and if helped in a way that works for them (management style) could lead to a more productive chair and WG.

Kathleen 

I don't a problem with having an out-of-WG document shepherd.
There might be more challenges at times, but I think that will be good.

Heck, I'd be happy with more non-WG Chair shepherds whether in or out of area.

Of course, I've been there too and if one is progressing just a few drafts, frequently

the work to be the draft shepherd may look like less than the work to go find, much

less teach, someone else to be a shepherd. 

 

I would like some larger carrot for being document shepherd.
I would love to have a(n ietf-wide) list of people willing to be a shepherd
that I could draw upon.

A list would be useful. 

At one point we discussed whether documents should always ACK WG chairs
and Shephards by default. I.e. the RFC editor would put it it if it was
missing.

I'd like larger carrots for lots of things :-)   Partly, I think it is about providing public

recognition and thanks - rather than needing a permanent tombstone.  

In a culture that depends in part on reputation, public appreciation can be useful.

Regards,

Alia

 

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-