As a "junior" IESG member, I have been reading this open thread with great interest.
Replying to Bob's email because he nailed a lot of valid points:
1) AD are 'responsible' so they do need to check the intensive work of WG, shepherd, IETF last call and directorate
2) sometimes the directorate reviews come too late for the IESG ballot for approval
3) and the IESG review is an interesting step because it is a common decision by different ADs with different background and expertise (BTW, do not consider the IESG as monolithic => we tend to politely and respectfully disagree among ourselves but we always manage to come to a position)
4) the review is of course deeper when it is the WG where you are the responsible AD __, for others I look of the overall readability, some process oriented things (such as RFC 8174), conflicts with other drafts/WG/areas, and issues related to my area (internet)
5) indeed, the expertise coverage of an AD should aim for breadth and not for depth for the reviews (in addition to the
6) reviews are probably 50% of our time
7) several AD (including myself) are not English-speaking natives, how would we dare to have editorial comments ;-) but I am improving my English by reading those comments :-)
And as Kathleen wrote, while this requires a lot of time and energy, the reward is excellent: you learn a LOT and most of the time this is really interesting :-)
Hope this helps
-éric
On 05/11/2019, 16:53, "ietf on behalf of Bob Hinden" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of 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.
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
