On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 07:54:52PM +0000, Salz, Rich 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? The whole process would break. :^( (I don't know whether that's good or bad...) Beyond question, the workload has become oppressive. Different IETF-Chairs have different approaches. Adapting to these changes, IMHO, has been challenging for IESG members. But the long-term trend has been to make it entirely too difficult to say no to any new-group proposal. A pair of WG-chairs is appointed, and the AD's don't have time to follow the actual process. Some WGCs listen very carefully to AD advice; others don't. Some ADs give very good advice early; others don't. But there's an endemic problem: enough of the hoi-polloi see each WG as the only possible way to "solve" their problem; and they develop tunnel vision. Thus anyone other than the AD who points out a problem is facing a cliff-like wall of resistance. This leads to problems entombed in published RFCs. It is rare for these problems to be solved -- ever. Beating your head against these entombed problems _seriously_ reduces the enthusiasm of ordinary IETF-ers to devote full-time to our process. :^( :^( :^( (Having basically retired from my full-time job, I have perhaps enough time available to work on this, but nowhere near enough money to cover $50,000 per year of out-of pocket expenses.) (Also, I hate air travel!) But perhaps, somebody else will explore alternatives to selecting only employer-sponsored folks for the IESG... -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>
