On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:21:42AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 05-Nov-19 10:39, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > > > > On 04/11/2019 21:33, Salz, Rich wrote: > >> So something more lasting, like an IAB program? YAKOBE? > > > > Heh:-) > > > > To be clear: No, restructuring the IESG is so very > > definitely not the IAB's job. > > A draft in front of gendispatch might be the correct approach, > if there are any specific proposals. Although, reading > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.1.2, it's not > clear to me that any process changes are needed, since > nowhere is it specified that IESG members should perform > detailed technical reviews themselves. As far as I can see, > they could stop doing that tomorrow without breaking any > process rules, and choose to rely entirely on the various > review teams. The past few generic IESG job descriptions (as sent to Nomcom) have had some interesting text in this front (quoting from https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2019/expertise/#pos-iesg-members): % An AD should be able to personally review every Internet-Draft that they % sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs to be satisfied that % adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review these % documents as well. That does, of course, leave the question open of what constitutes "adequate review", but it seems highly likely that the intent is to allow directorates to satisfy it. -Ben
