Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA86120125 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:22:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SL4f8sV4NvDa for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5FC71208F6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:22:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1iRis7-0005a9-V2; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:22:44 +0000
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 12:22:43 -0800
Message-ID: <m2sgn32xyk.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
In-Reply-To: <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com>
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BJbRRIxfUXvog-cQuNetRo8Aiho>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:22:48 -0000

> I wonder what people think would break if we moved to 5 AD's per area,
> and they could divide the WG's and IESG concalls amongst themselves?

and that might free up one of them to write more process docs about all
this.

perhaps it is not a problem of technical engineering load, but a problem
of bureaucratic, process, and politics load.

randy