Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> And again - this is all procedural, no change to IETF rules is
    >> needed. I begin to realise that the IESG's workload is in its own
    >> hands, and we (all of us who've served in the IESG over the last 20
    >> years) have to share the blame for current practice.

    > Something I realized long ago is that IETF community expectations are
    > at least as influential as the rules, probably moreso.

    > As long as the community expects that any working group that has
    > support will be approved, that working groups can stay alive as long as
    > they keep producing documents, and that any document that a working

I'd really like them to stay alive while not producing (new) documents.
So I feel that groups sometimes are eager to recharter because that is the
only way to stay alive.  I'd like to change that.

    > And every time someone points out that IESG is overloaded, most of the
    > proposed "solutions" seem to have the intent, or at least effect, of
    > further reducing document quality.

But, the bar is already very very high.

    > Maybe it's just me, but I keep thinking that the best way for IETF to
    > serve the Internet is to produce fewer documents of higher quality and
    > greater relevance.

Fewer RFCs, I agree.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [