Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

+1 to Mary's comments.. few words in line..

Elwyn Davies
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 09:11 -0600, Mary Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > There is obviously no easy fix.  If there was, we would have fixed it, obviously.
> >
> > What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the process.  It is thinking like that, how to do things different, that will get us out of the bind we have made for ourselves.
> >
> > Note that I am not married to the idea of expanding the role of directorates. I am married to the idea that we can think ourselves outside of the box.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, "Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us.  Therefore, this situation is created by us.  We have the power to fix it.  We have to want to fix it.  Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it.
> >>
> >> what is "the fix"?
> >>
> >> The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time.
> [MB] Personally, I'm not at all seeing this concept of uniformity in
> terms of the output. I don't even see consistency amongst documents
> for specific WGs.  We can't even agree how normative language should
> be used in documents.  I've been a gen-art reviewer for 9.5 years and
> we don't even come close to producing consistent documents.  I fully
> agree that there is significant value in the cross area reviews, in
> particular for security.  But, I personally think that can happen as
> effectively at the directorate review as at the IESG level of review.
> [/MB]
[EBD] I have also been a gen-art reviewer for about a long as Mary and I
totally agree that consistency is not what we get, especially on the
quality front.  However really the only consistencies that are really
vital are comprehensibility and technical quality.  Variations in style
make life a little more entertaining and I would prefer not to resort to
some sort of uniform legalese - in any case, not all drafts are talking
about the same sort of thing. And, yes, multiple reviews with different
points of view do help. [/EBD]

> 
> >>
> >> I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job.
> [MB] I don't think anyone is suggesting to turn it into just a
> management job.  It still requires someone with significant technical
> expertise in other areas. I don't think there's anyone hanging around
> in IETF that's being considered for IESG positions that doesn't have
> significant technical expertise in some areas.  This problem has been
> around since I was Nomcom chair, so it seems that there is no easy
> solution - would there be a way to split the role, so that you do have
> a solid technical advisor, they just have to bother with reviewing
> documents unless they are brought to their attention and they don't
> have to worry about managing the day to day activities of WGs.  I
> would be curious to know the typically time split between these two
> tasks for the average AD.   [/MB]

[EBD] Maybe the difference between what I do and the AD's reviewing job
is context.  Mine is diffuse - I have a general idea what is going on
and enough background to recognize when something might be broken; I
also have enough understanding to recognize when a novice would get lost
in a document that has its head down in the sands of jargon and
groupthink. We call ADs AREA Directors presumably because they have the
context of their area in mind when reviewing; I don't. Hopefully, an AD
is not seeing a doc that comes to the IESG for the very first time
because s/he has got some idea of what is going on in the WG or has
sponsored a doc. Hopefully (again) this gives the AD some context in
which to view the document, know its importance overall, interpret
comments from others and home in on key areas where they anticipate
there might be concerns; so there is synergy between the managemnt and
technical reviewing tasks.  Area directorates probably fall in between
on the context scale.  But ultimately the AD is called upon to make one
or more judgment calls both as regards documents and the performance of
WGs.  I would be extremely unhappy if these calls were purely management
exercises - they need a combination of technical nous, management acumen
and wider understanding of the importance of what is being done to allow
ADs to put their limited brain cycles into the most valuable work.
[Do I here somebody saying "And how do we define most valuable?" -
perhaps we come down to that difficult to hire characteristic.. common
sense.]   Doubtless this is hopelessly utopian, but having an AD with
his or her finger on the technical and value pulses of the area seems to
be the key to having an effective AD - they aren't just reviewing
machines! [/EBD]

> 
> Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely
> on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various
> directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply
> a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them
> to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all.
> [MB] This is where some people management skills come into place. [/MB]
> >>
> >> And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer.
> [MB] That's true, but the effort is typically in identifying the
> discuss and my perspective would be that the AD would consult with the
> reviewer before clearing a discuss.  I do find it quite puzzling that
> folks seem to think the ADs are the only ones qualified to review and
> identify issues in documents at this stage.  For my documents, while I
> think the ADs might have identified gaps or areas where clarification
> would be useful, but I haven't found those to be of more value than
> gen-art reviews, for example.
> [/MB]
> If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the
> time needed for the initial review.
> >>
> >> There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents...
[EBD] .. and be a little more succinct in how they say things. :-)
[/EBD]
> >>
> >> Lars
> >