Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/11/2019 21:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think that there is a lack of trust by ADs of the various directorates.
> Other ADs have commented on this, but I think I need to repeat what they
> said and expand on it.
> Results are vary varied. Some are quite good (e.g. Gen-Art) and others
> really depend on reviewer. ADs responsible for Directorates are faces
> with the choice of firing half of their Directorates (which has some
> rather unfortunate consequences) and/or raise the bar on who should be
> allowed to join. We already struggle to recruit people at all levels of
> our organization.
Firing people is not fun, but just doing the job of the directorate hurts the
organization a lot more.
Maybe this is where we need some confidential performance reviews. Or maybe
the make-up of the Directorate could be confidential, so that there is no
shame in being fired.
(Or maybe make the reviews blind, so that nobody knows who is being
fired. But there are lots of other issues here)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
