+1 to the Brian's thoughts below. I think this is one of the most important things we as a community need to address; we have a culture of expecting "heroes" to step up and take this job. That's going to bite us, sooner or later. Cheers, > On 6 Nov 2019, at 9:54 am, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05-Nov-19 22:24, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > .... >> 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. > > I'm sure the last clause is true, but maybe it's an error to include it in the job description almost as if it is a duty. > > On 06-Nov-19 05:35, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > >> 1) AD are 'responsible' so they do need to check the intensive work of WG, shepherd, IETF last call and directorate > > Yes, but that does *not* necessarily require this: > >> 6) reviews are probably 50% of our time > > And Eric also said: > >> 2) sometimes the directorate reviews come too late for the IESG ballot for approval > > In that case, perhaps the response should be to defer the ballot automatically, and make it public that the reason is a late review. > > Also, do some areas only request telechat reviews? In my experience in Gen-ART, most issues and fixes occur during Last Call reviews, so that the telechat review is often a formality. > > On 06-Nov-19 08:17, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > >>> Does every AD read all the drafts? I don't know. But changing the process to say one AD from each area would reduce the load. >> >> Some divide it up. Pete & Barry had a split. If there was a big load, Stephen would start from one end of the list and I'd start from the other. We both mostly wanted to 'read' them all though. > > The word that stands out for me is "wanted". Similarly, it's because I *want* to track the technology that I've been a Gen-ART reviewer for many years. But if (as people say every year at about this time) we really need to reduce the AD workload to something more like part-time, some things have to change. > > It seems to me that the IESG itself can make such changes, since this is a matter of procedures rather than our formal rules. It's too late for this year, but maybe next year's NomCom could have an easier job. > > Brian > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
