This is what I'm getting at. These discussions have been going on for a long time, and nothing much has come of it, because (I think) once you're in the position and get what it entails, it tends to become as large as you're willing to allow it to become.
I will point out that Stephen is speaking from a position of privilege when he talks about not wanting it to be a paid role, or job, or whatever verbal gymnastics you want to use to describe it. That's how it was for me too, so I'm not entitled to criticize, but I would say that a pretty large number of the people in the IETF who would be qualified to take on the role simply can't, because they couldn't get funded to do it. How does the same job, but funded, become a bureaucratic role with people flying first class? Did I suggest abolishing the nomcom? Do students on scholarship suddenly start wearing suits and flying first class due to their new-found wealth?
The fact is, as far as I can tell, that the ADs who have time to do the job really well are being paid to spend as much time on it as they need to, and that is why they are able to do a really good job at it. Right now, those ADs come from a fairly small number of companies, and that number is dwindling. One thing we can do is to simply have ADs do so much less that it becomes something that can be hidden inside a real job doing something else. Another is that we can own the fact that people need to be paid to do the work, and ask the question of whether those people should be paid directly by some corporation, or whether the role should be funded in a way that is a bit more egalitarian.
I am not claiming that the answer is that it should be an IETF-funded role. What I'm saying is that I haven't heard a response to my suggestion that was anything other than that it should indeed be a paid role, just not paid by the IETF.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:56 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 26/07/2018 03:26, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> There is also a problem with directorate reviews of highly variable
> quality. I don't want to name any names but I have seen reviews from
> the X directorate that said absolutely nothing about the X aspects of
> the reviewed draft and merely commented on a couple of things the
> automated nits checker complained about. Such "reviews" are virtually
> a no-op.
Of course, if an AD decided to delegate authority to a review team,
that would require that the AD also trusted the review team to
do its job correctly. At the moment, review teams are *not* formally
on the hook, but if they were to hold real power, they would need
to be explicitly responsible to the community.
As John Klensin implied, it's really up to the IESG. If the IESG wants
to limit its workload, that means giving up some of its power. Something
for the NomCom to consider when evaluating candidates.Why do you believe that the IESG hasn't limited its workload?Given that, I believe, the majority of ADs are not essentially full-time, whatchanges do you all see as needed?Much of this conversation feels like a discussion from 6-8 years ago.Regards,AliaBrian
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
> d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 25/07/2018 15:53, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> The problem with review teams is that if you don't read the documents and
>>> don't know what they are about, you don't have the overview that allows for
>>> synthesis. One of the advantages of having people who review "all" the
>>> documents is that stuff occurs to those people because they see connections
>>> that people who don't review "all" the documents don't get. I put "all"
>>> in quotes because it's never really all, but even so, ADs definitely have a
>>> bird's eye view that is not shared by anyone else.
>>
>> It's true. But do you have any other ideas how to *substantially*
>> reduce the AD workload?
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>>> brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/07/2018 01:41, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>>> ....
>>>>> I think that as AD my time was consumed because I made a point of
>>>> reading,
>>>>> or at least skimming, all drafts prior to publication looking for
>>>> security
>>>>> specific issues.
>>>>
>>>> So would things be better if we formalized the area review teams so
>>>> that they perform this function directly and can officially register "No
>>>> Objection" in the IESG ballot, with the AD only being involved when the
>>>> suggested ballot is "Yes", "Discuss" or "Abstain"?
>>>>
>>>> (We've been talking about AD overload for >10 years, so maybe it's
>>>> time to actually change something.)
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
