I'm replying to John's note rather than somewhere in the thread because he's given me a good subject line for what I want to say at this point.
We have to be very careful here to make coherent sets of changes that taken together make things better rather than worse. It is unthinkable to institute a system in which ADs can be removed for not meeting criteria that weren't defined when they were appointed. It's elementary in human resource management that you only measure people against metrics that they signed up for. Very specifically, the existing ADs (except me) were told by the NomCom to expect a half time job. Well, it's a "half time" job that includes managing 10 WGs on average and reviewing 400 to 500 documents a year. It's impossible. So, whatever we think of the details of John's two drafts, and I have *lots* of detailed comments I could make, we can only reasonably solve the two equations simultaneously: make the IESG workload fit the job description, and make the ADs accountable. Further along the line of coherent changes, I don't want to see our process documents becoming even more of a patchwork than they already are. So a goal needs to be: instead of ending up with yet more patches to RFC 2026 and patches to RFC 3777, let's design a document roadmap that leads to a simple and coherent set of process documents. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf