On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:52 AM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rich,
> On Nov 4, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I wonder what people think would break if we moved to 5 AD's per area, and they could divide the WG's and IESG concalls amongst themselves?
>
Why stop there, how about one AD per working group?
I hope this helps makes it clear that more authority should go to the w.g. chairs, adding more AD won’t scale. The NomCom needs to be selecting people who are not the best technical experts in an area, but who know enough to make sure that adequate review has been done in the working groups, verify directorate reviews, and that last call comments have been addressed. They don’t need to do detailed technical reviews themselves. They especially don’t need to do editorial reviews.
For editorial problems, I sent some documents back to the working group to figure out. Sometimes with prolific authors, people get very used to the writing style and are able to read it without problems. When it gets to the AD, the problems are sometimes more clear. Just pointing this out and sending it back was enough to resolve those issues, so yes, delegating. :-)
AD reviews may be more in-depth, but cross area should just be focused on what the particular AD should be looking to see in documents from other areas IMO. While I did read most documents, you figure out where skimming is probably fine and learn where you may catch things of importance. It becomes less work if you do this after a few months in the job. A few calls of 800 pages to read really help you figure this out faster :-)
Kathleen
This might also allow the ADs to spend more time on working group charters to insure that the working group has the appropriate scope.
Bob
Best regards,
Kathleen
