(top post) Let me add one additional comment to John's description of the problem, which which I largely agree. He suggested that it had become "entirely too difficult to say no to any new-group proposal". I suggest that it has gotten even more difficult to say no to anything emerging from a working group, no matter how ill-conceived. Statistics about how long documents were sitting in IESG evaluation, waiting for AD, or waiting for new draft states might be very illuminating about this. best, john --On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:57 -0500 John Leslie <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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> >
