Joe Touch wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and having
sub-ADs report to them.
draft-iesg-alvestrand-twolevel, published October 2003, proposed
something of that sort.
Last trace of discussion I could find with Google was the Geneva IESG
retreat in 2005 (?), with the quote:
We discussed whether there was a need to formalize this into a two-level delegation system,
but concluded that there was no workload advantage in formally changing the primary role of the Area Directors.
I still don't believe that anything significantly less radical will make
a significant difference to the IESG workload problem. But at the
moment, the IESG/IETF interface doesn't seem to be in immediate crisis
mode, so I guess we'll survive another year.
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
