Hi Melinda,
On 31.07.18 08:42, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I think I'm actually okay with limiting the work the IETF takes
> on based on {some set of resource constraints}. I need to think
> about that some more but that doesn't strike me as obviously a bad
> idea (no worse, certainly, than professionalizing the IESG!).
We already seem to have some sort of scaling limit in effect on the
total number of working groups, given that we never quite seem to exceed
200. It could be that the bound is "interesting stuff", but I have
heard prioritization arguments elsewhere. Like the rfc++ discussion.
But like that discussion, I don't see a need to rush into anything either.
> I'm not sure I've even seen a clear statement of "the problem."
>
> I am astonished that this is receiving serious discussion.
Well, perhaps we are all assuming different problems. The one I was
presuming was that we had an AD who might otherwise had stayed on had
she been able to be funded. I didn't answer the problem statement in my
own message, but sometimes these discussions evolve to such a thing.
I'm no more astonished about this conversation than I am about rfc++ or
the myriad of other topics that show up on this list. One nice thing
about a crisp problem statement is that one can ask the question, “Is
that really a problem?”
Without repeating in their entirety the constraints I mentioned, here,
then, is a candidate problem statement:
> There are a group of highly qualified candidates for AD that are not
> volunteering because of funding concerns.
There are, of course, OTHER problems as well, and I may be constraining
the statement above to fit a particular class of solutions, but I think
it's fair to say we've all seen this one in action before. It is at
least A problem statement. Many of us know several IAB members who have
suffered this problem in the past to the point, which also leads to the
question of whether the scope of the problem should be limited to just
the IESG.
And as to this point:
> there's a universe of other ways to address the problem that aren't being discussed
Sure. Discuss?
Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
