Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re: [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-06-27 15:52, Joe Touch wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > > We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the
> > > per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward,
> > >   
> > It's not clearly even a way forward.  the more ADs there are, the harder
> > it is to coordinate between the ADs and the areas.
>
> Yes, each AD becomes less efficient, but perhaps the goal shouldn't be
> the efficiency of the individual volunteers but the ability to be more
> inclusive in who we can consider for these roles.

It isn't an issue of individual efficiency. A committee of 15 is already
unwieldy given our desire for consensus; the IESG thought long and
carefully before the last increase (from 6 to 7 Areas). I don't see
how it can be increased further.

One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits
(but that is getting better, thanks to PROTO shepherding). But maybe
we should be pushing harder to make WGs responsible for getting
final external reviews done (and responded to). That would just be
more delegation along the path that's been followed for the last
several years.

   Brian

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