On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If we want the IESG job to be more reasonably sized, we have to take work away from the ADs. As far as I can see, that means taking away their duty of acting as final reviewers. I don't want to name names because I don't think the ADs are to be blamed individually, but some of them spend *enormous* effort on detailed reviews. Either we have to trust the WGs more, or we have to trust the various review teams more, and allow the IESG to steer, which its name implies is its main job. And sign off on drafts that are good enough, rather than seeking perfection.
Agreed, and with Stephen's advocacy of delegation as a path forward. But to get there, the IETF (and the folks with dots, in particular) need to become more comfortable with the idea of decentralizing authority to a greater degree than they have been used to: that means empowering---and trusting, and training, and reviewing the output of---the directorates to a greater extent than happens today. The buck may still stop with the ADs, but they should be willing and able to choose to delegate to a greater degree, preserving their time and brain cycles for the truly critical stuff that they either seek out or that is escalated to them..
We may also want to take a serious look at re-empowering the IAB's historical role in architectural oversight, with an appropriate set of checks and balances to prevent a recurrence of the kerfuffle that resulted in the current structure.
Kyle
