In DISPATCH WG, the whole point is to do a better job considering new work before chartering or even progressing as AD sponsored. We have told several folks that there was no interest in their work at IETF. Of course, they then go the ISE route, which honestly I don't necessarily have an issue with, but that work does come back to someone in the IETF with expertise in that area to do a review and as I'm recalling ADs have to consider whether there's any conflict. So, yes, it's really hard, if not impossible to tell people we're not going to spend any cycles on their pet project. And, unfortunately, it also depends upon who is bringing in the work. We are not the meritocracy that many think we are for several reasons.
Regards,
Mary.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:13 AM John C Klensin <john@xxxxxxx> wrote:
(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>
>
