I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to
move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute
the
reviews and collect and interpret the results.
I would agree on one point. Document reviewers seem to me would
help. Most of the initial feedback (at leas
I'm not sure how useful it is to compare today's situation with the
pre-Kobe days. A lot of circumstances have changed since then. In
particular, IETF is slightly larger and much more diverse, its
audience is much larger and more diverse, the target environment is
several orders of magnitud
> The majority of documents are close to being acceptable - maybe 10% are
> not close.
there is a small question about the criteria that you might be using.
the current ietf's track is quite poor, both with respect to timeliness and
quality. quite simply we are taking a long time to turn out l
Keith,
With the understanding that I completely agree that this
wouldn't be easy, especially in the transition, I think parts of
your discussion miss a key option or two. I was struck by an
earlier comment of Dave Crocker's to the effect that we've had
problems since all of the authority got hand
Joe Touch wrote:
I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to
move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute the
reviews and collect and interpret the results.
I would agree on one point. Document reviewers seem to me would
help. Most of the initial
> I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs, i.e., to
> move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let the ADs distrbute the
> reviews and collect and interpret the results.
This is _more_ work for the ADs, not less, because the ADs have to read the
reviews in addition to t
> Only if we view this top-down. If the role of the ADs is to make sure a
> doc gets reviewed, they can hand it to a WG or a separate "non WG set of
> reviewers".
as I said before, this doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it.
there absolutely needs to be a program committee for documents if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
>>Why isn't a larger number of "ADs" - or, more specifically, removing the
>>review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
>>here?
>
>
> The more ADs there are, the more things get bogged down at the IE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Why isn't a larger number of "ADs" - or, more specifically, removing the
>> review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
>> here?
>
> 1. the repeated assessment has been that the aggregate size of t
> 2. if the work being done has too much effort on the wrong tasks, it does not
> help things to have more people doing the wrong things.
the overall statement is true. it's not clear that the premise is true.
Keith
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf
> Why isn't a larger number of "ADs" - or, more specifically, removing the
> review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
> here?
The more ADs there are, the more things get bogged down at the IESG
level. ADs need to come to a mutual understanding about what are
reasona
> Why isn't a larger number of "ADs" - or, more specifically, removing the
> review process from the ADs and having a real review group, the solution
> here?
1. the repeated assessment has been that the aggregate size of the iesg is at
its limit, for getting anything done.
2. if the work bein
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
>>So the real requirement is to reduce the load the IETF places on an AD.
>
>
> This seems like an extremely difficult problem to me. Most of IESG's
> workload is in reviewing technical specifications. I don't see any way
> to pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Note, however, that reducing the workload is not the only possible
>> solution. I suspect that even partial funding for these positions would
>> make it easier for people to volunteer.
>
>
> not really.
>
> most people have
> So the real requirement is to reduce the load the IETF places on an AD.
This seems like an extremely difficult problem to me.Most of IESG's
workload is in reviewing technical specifications. I don't see any way to
provide good quality technical specifications without a final review by a g
> Note, however, that reducing the workload is not the only possible
> solution. I suspect that even partial funding for these positions would
> make it easier for people to volunteer.
not really.
most people have full-time jobs. giving them outside funding does not change
the impact on tha
> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeffrey> On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 04:21:21 PM -0400 John C
Jeffrey> Klensin
Jeffrey> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> First, the IESG job has become so burdensome in part because of
>> decisions by the IESG about
On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 04:21:21 PM -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First, the IESG job has become so burdensome in part because of
decisions by the IESG about how much work they need to do and to
what level of detail they need to address documents. To take a
handy, but delibe
> more). The general complain we hear is that the processes are generally
> slow, so I am inclined to select someone who can put the hours.
A significant alternative to consider is to select someone who wants to find
ways to reduce the hours needed.
Note the kinds of examples that John cited;
Nomcom again, so I'll take the bait.
* On the workload aspects, I for one, as a Nomcom member, am guilty as
charged. We get a guidance at the beginning of the process from the IAB
and the IESG on what the work entails. If I recall correctly, an AD's
job is more or less full-time, whereas an IA
--On Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 14:23 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, I chose to cite a common rationale used by the nomcom
>> ("there were no other choices") and suggest that the regular
>> occurrence of that rationale is sufficient indication of a
>> deep, serious probl
I'll chime in on this, having been a NomCom'er at one time.
"Inexperienced people on Nomcom"
In my year, there were quite a few who would fit this category. I
found these folks to be quite objective and a refreshing source of
questions.
The one hindering factor was that they, because of not hav
Hi,
Some comments on the Nomcom related topics:
"Inexperienced people on Nomcom"
My experience was that most, if not all, of the people in this year's
Nomcom are quite experienced in the IETF processes and care about the
IETF. We have, I think, at least 4 WG chairs, and most if not all
members
On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 09:56:46 AM -0700 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I thought
it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective. I was
ass
> I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I thought
> it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
>
> An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective. I was
> assuming, perhaps incorrectly,that you subscribed to that view.
Most years, I pu
> The problem is not that ADs have nasty intentions. It's that the
> otherwise-essential job of quality assurance has been taken to the
> extreme of having ADs block completed work that has been developed in
> all the proper ways. This includes AD vetos (which are
> euphemistically called "disc
> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I did not find claims that specific IESG members had used the
>> discuss power to advance personal agendas.
>>
>> I may have missed the specifics.
Dave> Well, no, you probably did not miss the specifics that you
(addendum)
Sam,
Additional points:
> See above. I just looked at section 2.6 of RFC 3774 and it does not seem
> to discuss the sorts of problems that lead to my comment. If I'm missing
> something please point me at it.
I went back and reviewed that text. It cites exactly the point I am
> Organizations rarely improve by having vague comments about abuse of power
> tossed around. If you are looking to improve the process I suggest that
> you raise specific objections to specific actions.
Sam,
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these issues,
over th
29 matches
Mail list logo
