Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI)Area

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>]

Hi Lakshminath,

> The end result is that we have documents in the RFC Ed queue with 
> another document in the wings called draft-blah-clarifications

I'm plotting the growth rate of draft-blah-clarifications, and my 
current estimate
is that it will exceed the size of draft-blah-original before 
draft-blah-original
becomes an RFC.

(But we are in deep trouble if the only part of the organization that does
reviews is the IESG.)

> I am curious about the scheduling issues.  If the IESG job is a 
> "full-time" job, why can't the people on IESG find time to meet with 
> each other, f2f or in telecons; perhaps someone will help me 
> understand that.  The other issue that comes up is time zones.  We've 
> had this in the Nomcom and I found out recently that telecons at odd 
> hours is the norm if you work in some SDOs.  I think these should be 
> non-issues really.
>
> Perhaps the IESG job description should say in part, "you are expected 
> to work some 35-40 hours a week on IESG stuff, should keep your 
> calendar open in the months of ... for a retreat, and should be able 
> to participate in telecons at odd hours."  If you remove IESG from 
> that sentence, it probably is already in many IETFers' job descriptions.

This isn't a comment on the scaling issue (I think it needs to be 
considered)
but I'm a bit surprised that the above isn't already a part of the job
description... The Internet is important, and we should not treat the
management of its technical direction as a hobby that you do on
top of your day-time job. Maybe in some special cases, but not as
general rule.

--Jari


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf