|
> Perhaps if we suggested to NomCom to select less conscientious ADs? The NomCom starts from the job descriptions provided to it by the IESG. Those job descriptions (accurately) cite a workload that is sufficient to scare away the vast majority of nominees. As a result, the only people who are left are those who are willing to consider such a workload, and whose management is willing to support them. So if the desire is to enable the IETF to produce high quality documents without requiring the ADs to act as heroes, then this will require a major restructuring. One of the first principles taught in quality control is that quality is everyone's job -- and until that principle is assimilated and integrated that high levels of quality cannot be achieved. In particular, this would require WG chairs would need to take on more responsibility for quality control than they do now. There are SDOs in which much of the responsbility for quality is given to the WG chairs (e.g. IEEE 802 has no equivalent of the IESG, although they do have "sponsor ballot"). The results suggest that high quality documents are produced by WGs whose chairs take the role seriously, and that low quality documents are produced by WGs that do not. Whether that outcome is satisfactory depends on one's view on what should be done with low quality documents. Should they be "improved" or do we take a more darwinian view? Mike O'Dell was a classic darwinist, often arguing that "improving" atrocious documents to mediocrity was a dis-service to the community. |