I've thought to myself 'If I knew only these folks were running, I would have considered ...' I wonder if other people have thought the same.
John L.
_ Original message _
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Author: "John C Klensin" [EMAIL PR
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am
willing to believe them.
fwiw I responded Yes to Danny's question, but not
without careful thought and some hesitation.
there have been cases where names were published by the iab or iesg,
e,g, in selecting for the iaoc and the isoc bot.
while i know it is probably impossible to know how many people refused
to be considered because of the publication (don't remember if there
was a opt-out of publication
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am
willing to believe them.
Unfortunately Brian, this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.
It has to do with
Playing a bit of catch-up on this thread...
Alia Atlas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a difference between having participants who are interested in
providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of
confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information
In the light of this and Dave's comments, and since I used to
teach people how to design survey questions so that the
questions were as non-reactive as possible and the answers could
be interpreted. There is nothing inherently wrong with a
self-report question. We ask them all the time and
(catching up)
From the ICAR review team page at
http://www.machshav.com/~icar/reviews/people/
one can observe that only two review requests were ever
submitted, and just one of these (a request submitted by me)
resulted in a review (by Bernard). The other requested
review, actually on Dave
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
say they would not have volunteered.
It's not my intent to develop BCP text on ietf@ietf.org, but I do feel
the need to say that we've had a previous suggestion that we could ask
Coming back to the question at hand, if the nomcom asks people
whether they would have accepted nominations if their names
would become public, why would someone lie? And, if they did,
then which way would the report be biased. I would think that
people who are inclined to give
Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk
the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if
their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics.
Sam,
Sorry, no.
As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey
Hi, Sam,
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spencer My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific
Spencer AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer nominations for IAB positions.
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
Brian RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe
Brian that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates
Brian would *not* volunteer if they
Hesham,
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
...
Even assuming that publishing candidate lists would result in
better-quality feedback and permit the Nomcom to make better
choices among plausibly-appropriate candidates, please look at
the other side. There are people in the community who, for
= I would challenge this assumption. From what I've seen (I saw
the list of some of the nominees lately) I don't think we have
it is not an assumption. it is an explanation that the nomcom gives, with
some regularity.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
= With all due respect to those people, I think it's a shame
they feel like that. It seems like the selection decision
is perceived
as a personal judgement by those people. Good people may not
get selected for a million reasons. I hate making blanket
judgements
but this kind
But there is another issue. When someone asks their employer for
agreement to be a candidate, the employer may worry about the PR
impact. Imagine:
Well, that is certainly a serious problem for all of the other professional
organizations that have public nominees lists, isn't it?
d/
On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's
candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name
had been made public?
Brian
Brian et al.,
Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to all
those
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Danny McPherson
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:31 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see
This is a good suggestion in the sense that as far as I can see, it
would fall within the current BCP rules, and could be implemented
easily soon. Then we could take a bit more time to update the BCP
in parallel, while perhaps also getting some early experiences
on how well the new model works.
Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
Sam:
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think most people
Dave Crocker wrote:
But I would suspect that we aren't careful enough for Chair
positions in being certain that the candidate has enough free time and
full support from their employer.
Not that it would guarantee anything, but it might be useful to have a
candidate for working group chair
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As Leslie noted (...) another tricky point is exactly when
the list is published and how nominations after that date
are handled.
Agreed. If you make the publication at the end of the
nominations period then its not useful as a tool for
other potential candidates to decide
Jari Arkko wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As Leslie noted (...) another tricky point is exactly when
the list is published and how nominations after that date
are handled.
Agreed. If you make the publication at the end of the
nominations period then its not useful as a tool for
other potential
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further
nominations before day N+14.
On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite
feedback.
This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra
nominations and another 2 weeks to
Seems resonable to of as well.
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/10/2005 5:27 pm
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous
to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process.
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further
nominations before day N+14.
On day N+28, publish the final list of
Brian,
This works for me, too. FWIW.
Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous
to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process.
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite
further
nominations before day N+14.
On day N+28, publish the final
Sorry for late response.
Let me follow this up a bit.
I've been encouraging people to try to sort through reasons and
things that would make it different on another thread, but I
think we have a choice of potential candidates problem today.
The IESG and IAB received very few real
--On 8. mai 2005 23:54 +0200 Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to
do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new
chair stopped posting to the list after a short time. (The last time, I
think he
Hi Kai,
At 4:44 PM +0200 5/8/05, Kai Henningsen wrote:
ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to
do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new
chair stopped posting to the list after a short time. (The last time, I
think he came back after a
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 8. mai 2005 23:54 +0200 Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to
do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new
chair stopped posting to the list after a short
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this
was suggested
during
Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi Keith,
Keith, you have been advocating a model where the IETF would be
stricter in allowing what work be taken up, in order to ensure that
we can actually deliver. But I share the same opinion as John L that
we should rather try to shape the IETF so that it can deliver what
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
Sam:
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think most people would be really
Joe Touch wrote:
...
Nobody died and made the IESG cop. They took it upon themselves, and
that's not how things (should) work in the IETF.
I suggest you read RFC 2026 again.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
...
Nobody died and made the IESG cop. They took it upon themselves, and
that's not how things (should) work in the IETF.
I suggest you read RFC 2026 again.
Brian
I did; you might as well.
Actually, I'm not sure I agree (that it's a good plan, or better
to do it this way than update the BCP).
When the NomCom WG was discussing this as part of creating RFC3777,
I was initially a proponent of the publish the candidate list!
perspective. I will admit to having been swayed by the
--On Monday, 09 May, 2005 13:56 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
My immediate reaction is who were the available candidates
for chair
In contentious groups, the requirement list is roughly (not in
priority order):
- Knows enough of the technology to
ISTR = I Seem To Recall
On 5/9/05, Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Kai,
At 4:44 PM +0200 5/8/05, Kai Henningsen wrote:
ISTR a case of a WG that got replaced its chair by the IESG, and told to
do its work differently, two or three times - and *every* time, the new
chair
I'm actually not particularly convinced that publicizing the list
of names would narrow the candidate pool particularly, but it does
seem to me that by making electioneering a more pressing piece of
the process (there's electioneering now, but it's not significant)
and moving the process closer to
I don't understand why making names public would increase
electioneering over what we already have.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't understand why making names public would increase
electioneering over what we already have.
Electioneering is perhaps the wrong word, since it implies
behavior on the part of the candidates. What I'm thinking about
is pressure from
Ah, but the candidates know who they are, and can arrange their own
positive input.
If the list were open, might the nomcom receive more and better balanced
input?
- Ralph
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:49 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/07/2005 5:43 pm
Hi John,
At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin
email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Proper WG chairs (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/09/2005 1:56 pm
--On 8. mai 2005 23:54 +0200 Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISTR a case of a WG
you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Proper WG chairs (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/09/2005 3:38 pm
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 8. mai 2005 23:54 +0200 Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISTR a case
on candidates can remain
anonymous.
John
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/09/2005 4:09 pm
Hi Lakshminath,
Good point. Its possible that you would get (some) more input with
the new system. My guess is though that you'd still need to poll specific
groups to get the input, because people are typically not very
eager to do things unless you remind them. But its likely that
if you get very
--On mandag, mai 09, 2005 21:38:41 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
you forgot one:
- willingness to continue working as a chair, long after their day job
has moved onto new topics.
In this business, most folks change tasks, if not jobs, sooner than the
average half-life of
I tend to agree with Leslie that it would be better to update
the BCP. (I can volunteer to edit an update, if there are
no other takers.)
But I believe the update should simply allow the nomcom
to publish this information. As has been stated before,
a lot of this information is already around us,
--On Monday, 09 May, 2005 20:49 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald,
you forgot one:
- willingness to continue working as a chair, long after
their day job has moved onto new topics.
In this business, most folks change tasks, if not jobs,
sooner than the
John,
I would add one, which is the consequence of your known enough
to the AD... observation. There is a completely natural
tendency, whether it causes this problem or others, for the ADs
to keep going back to the same well of people who have known
abilities, especially abilities to handle this
--On Monday, 09 May, 2005 22:21 +0300 Jari Arkko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All excellent points. I would add that the process should
start from the potential new chair resource at least being
(a) known to IETF management so that he can even be
considered and (b) the resource getting
Hi John,
So, those of you who strongly advocate a public list... What
percentage of the already-too-small potential candidate pool are
you willing to lose? Are you convinced that anyone with
sensitivities or conditions similar to those outlined above
would make a bad AD if selected? Do you
And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to
endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the
nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email.
A risk not without quite extensive precedent over the years, and the
concept of overt
I agree that electioneering is extremely undesirable.
And it does currently agree to some degree.
The question is whether publishing the list would actually cause a
significant increase in that behavior. If we conclude that publishing
would indeed result in such an increase, then that is a good
moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what
the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation
the vast majority of AD edicts (as opposed to directed feedback)
are the result
Kai Henningsen wrote:
moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 27.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what
the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation
the vast majority of AD edicts (as opposed to directed
--On Wednesday, 04 May, 2005 17:04 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they
You raise two questions about making the candidate list public.
You raise the question of whether we can afford the loss of candidates from
those people not willing to be seen as losing. I will admit to not being
sure I understand the driver for people who both have that concern and
could do
Hi John,
At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible
candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which,
personally, I think would be healthy).
What is reasonable turnover for the IESG?
I haven't been on a nomcom, but (from
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What is reasonable turnover for the IESG?
... successful ADs who are willing to
continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10
years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice.
I personally find that this is too long.
What level of
At 10:52 AM -0700 5/7/05, Christian Huitema wrote:
What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would
be the impacts of having more new ADs each year?
My personal preference would be an average of 4 to 6 years. You have to
ensure turnover for multiple reasons: even if you have
Do you actually think that we need an even higher turnover? Or are
you pointing out an historical problem which may have been corrected
over the past two years?
I was merely reacting to your assessment that renewal rate by the nom
com of less than 25% leads to average terms of 8-10 years,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sam Hartman wrote:
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
I'll certainly
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe delegation) or make their work smaller (by encouraging
Joe feedback to be directional - as in 'take to WG X' - rather
Joe than technical review).
I'll certainly remember this when reviewing documents you author;)
Seriously, I think
Keith == Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu writes:
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.
(catching up after a few days in meetings, but it will
still take a while to read everything)
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian,
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these
issues, over the last 3 years...
Here's a quick list of things that have been done. It's written in
Jerry,
We all want to increase throughput and quality simultaneously,
but we need to look at facts before jumping to conclusions.
It's certainly true that if the technical quality of documents coming
out of WGs was better, IESG review *and the subsequent process
to rectify the document* would be
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but it's
On 15:39 04/05/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
My quick answer on relevance is what it's always been - the most important
single action we ever take is chartering a new WG.
Yes. Also to make sure the WG reviewed it and consensually understood it
the same way. And that the IESG understood the
Hi Sam (and everyone else),
At 5:38 PM -0400 4/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd just like to say that I'm not at all sure being an AD is a full
time job. It certainly sometimes is.
I do not work for the IETF full-time. I have a demanding full-time
job, a family and other interests.
It is hard to
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested
during last week's IESG retreat.)
= If we do
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this
was suggested
during last week's IESG
Brian,
But unfortunately the
IESG still receives a fair number of documents with fairly serious
technical issues and/or serious editorial issues. As long as that is true,
I really don't see how we can take away the IESG's responsibility as the
back stop for quality, especially for
Brian,
First point - I unaccountably forget to mention that we agreed on and
published an IETF Mission Statement (RFC 3935). That was a direct response
to the first root problem described in RFC 3774.
Do you believe that that document will meaningfully contribute to the IETF's
producing
Hi Brian,
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but
Brian Jari,
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that
IMO the major problem to be solved is IETF throughput, takes far too
long to produce RFCs, **years**, and getting worse. Unacceptably long
for users of the standards. IESG is a bottleneck, well known, stated in
RFC 3773 http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt?number=3774, Section 2.6.2
Workload of the
John, Spencer,
The issue you raise about different people having different
amount of information is a valid one. I originally thought
of this problem mainly from the point of view of an individual
being able to provide good input, but it would indeed be fair
that all IETFers have the same ability
Keith, you have been advocating a model where the IETF would be
stricter in allowing what work be taken up, in order to ensure that we
can actually deliver. But I share the same opinion as John L that we
should rather try to shape the IETF so that it can deliver what the
world needs.
My
Hi Keith,
Keith, you have been advocating a model where the IETF would be
stricter in allowing what work be taken up, in order to ensure that
we can actually deliver. But I share the same opinion as John L that
we should rather try to shape the IETF so that it can deliver what
the world needs.
Spencer,
You hit an important issue. Having a small group of people
choose who they want feedback from (granted everyone else is welcome
to send feedback without knowing the options for ADs) is not
a recipe for a successful process. I haven't yet seen a good reason
for not publicising the
But, again, to even think about that, the IESG is going to need a lot of
support and bottom-up direction.
John,
Let me suggest that there has already been quite a bit of that.
It has not been any sort of overwhelming, unified, shout-in-a-single-voice,
but there really have been quite a few
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Going back almost to the dawn of IESG time, the IESG has had one
constant and primary responsibility. That is to manage the WGs
and the WG process. Under today's rules, they determine or
ratify which WGs get created, who chairs them and how they are
Keith,
You've raised these points, over a number of years, but I wonder if it would be
useful to explore implications of some of your comments:
2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output
from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem
by changing
Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/04/27 Wed PM 01:59:38 EEST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org,
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi Lakshminath,
As the title indicates
Brian,
However, I'm not entirely convinced that the unrestricted veto really
exists. Before I can think about solutions to this problem, I need to
reexamine the process and convince myself that it really is a problem.
A DISCUSS isn't a veto. I've seen numerous cases even in my short
But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and
timeliness -- and especially since early reviews seem to
have succeeded at gaining IETF rough consensus as a Good
Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) wrote:
From the ICAR review team page at
http://www.machshav.com/~icar/reviews/people/
one can observe that only two review requests were ever
submitted, and just one of these (a request submitted by me)
resulted in a review (by Bernard). The other
Just to agree with JohnL,
NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think
that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot
reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates
have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are
a
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:12 AM, John Loughney wrote:
Keith,
You've raised these points, over a number of years, but I wonder if it
would be useful to explore implications of some of your comments:
2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output
from working groups, and we
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
Not Sec 4.2.3 for individual submissions; that one talks about checking
for conflict, not editing for content.
Have you taken a look at RFC 3922 (The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
Procedures)? While these were previously also
Fred,
excellent comments.
As stated, this sounds adversarial. While there have been adversarial
relations with some WGs, I don't think that generalizes. In many cases
where I have delayed updating a draft, it was because it wasn't clear to
me what was being asked for, or there was no
NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we
miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who
is a candidate and who is not.
YES!
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE
So, it seems like WG chairs were not very interested in getting help with
early reviews, but I would not say this is necessarily a failure without
giving it more time. It
And therein lies a key point about fixing underlying problems.
We seem to be willing to give unproductive working
Keith,
Let me offer a different perspective here as well and, in the
process, explain why I keep coming back to the IESG.
Going back almost to the dawn of IESG time, the IESG has had one
constant and primary responsibility. That is to manage the WGs
and the WG process. Under today's rules,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
The only way to releive work is to distribute it, not
concentrate it.
False. You can also relieve work while keeping throughput
constant by reducing overhead.
Distributing work often reduces throughput by creating more
--On Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 08:41 -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposals for upgrading/streamlining standards track in
discussion (i.e. newtrk and specifically the ISD proposal,
but there's certainly more to do in newtrk)
Another derailed activity. Another activity
1 - 100 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
