Russ, I would never argue for non-technical ADs. But when we are short of candidates, it may be necessary to appoint technically expert ADs who are not deep experts in the specific area. It's a practical matter.
Regards Brian On 04/03/2013 15:26, Russ Housley wrote: > > The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is to > make sure that the process was followed. > > The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG also > has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a step > toward the ITU model. > > Russ > > > On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM 3/4/13, "Eggert, Lars" <l...@netapp.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger <ebur...@standardstrack.com> wrote: >>>> I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us. Therefore, this >>>> situation is created by us. We have the power to fix it. We have to want >>>> to fix it. Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it >>>> is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it. >>> what is "the fix"? >> I think part of the fix is to consider more than just the IESG. We need to >> take look at the work across the IETF that goes into producing our documents >> and see if we can redistribute or reduce that work to lessen the workload on >> ADs ... if the goal is, indeed, to reduce the time commitment on individual >> ADs. >> >>> The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical >>> expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to >>> other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The >>> reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same >>> eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. >> But that model doesn't scale. What about, for example, ensuring the quality >> in the documents as they come out of the WGs?, which distributes the work >> rather than concentrating it in IESG? >> >>> This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. >>> But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a >>> significant investment of time. >> Agreed. >>> I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD >>> position into a management job. >>> Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely on >>> volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various directorates >>> is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply a uniform measure >>> when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them to stick to deadlines. >>> They're volunteers, after all. >>> >>> And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear >>> discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to >>> understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer. If >>> there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the time >>> needed for the initial review. >> Sure, for any specific issue. My personal experience is that I spend more >> time on the ordinary review processes than I do summing up the time on >> extra-ordinary technical arguments. >> >>> There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so >>> many documents... >>> >>> Lars >> - Ralph >> >> > >
