Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

Keith Moore <> Mon, 04 November 2019 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B2912091B for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:17:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWD4tm7g7bos for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CE11207FB for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84513653; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:17:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:17:09 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=Bgjjl6Z9f7ikPtoirDNQ3vcoZVNZ2g9lmz5FWJLTL 98=; b=oC8VXI4ylBiWophJlmq3U5IT32J0RbEjPt3mkbU3Hta7g7mDIb47kXYdA YySgT6ITx7/jS1feA70L23hnfWlDVtIGugO1UFptFhiToAuvAOK/yRBqlO4ele65 hiqsKqSO8C67hzbFQqWLCf/IBcFpqXEdc1bHwemEXLCPL4aV2+27CoMd3UpNDRRu kxLgACFbeeRrTxqX/+UE4Bcy7NModKSHCKiXznViJmcptVDdukKB1NppxrXl3nAA lrMQZyoAPcI1Ll7UFfeMJfdUvMBYn3kzVpwz8MoZR6Poc89nw3rKSJlCAaqlcDIR Qs9+cRQRIFBFnuvzzis3hRXDL0wIQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:dLHAXRILzZo8nCZNFjukZ4VuZwsFCfDV4F7jRhdKy6JH7q7kfimDSw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddugedgtdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:dLHAXRbY_JICzCzjBGG63O0haZngWOra9HiRSQnfJweri1Kzswb8Sw> <xmx:dLHAXUuyvsmDKqqY_DFFW2-uU2vkXdtADOnfFKJL-0kIXE2vCH3C-g> <xmx:dLHAXWtVhLCJdWE3DvjT4-xq6KME36dvSXapeKLzPfpk0_-XJu5SAA> <xmx:dbHAXZjRJkVvSDQDetVZ80hHqSsB7UPeChnHv3Nw348FBpsThx9Tcw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F282C80059; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:17:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:17:06 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 23:17:12 -0000

On 11/4/19 2:54 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:

> 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?

I suspect it would mean that there'd be more ADs looking for nits to 
pick in order to delay documents.

Note: I DO NOT think that ADs see their purpose in picking nits or 
delaying documents.   But I do think there's a tendency for people in 
any position to, perhaps subconsciously, try to "prove their worth", and 
I suspect that having a lot more ADs would create perverse incentives.

ADs do tend to be overloaded.   Sometimes, IMO, it's because there is a 
lack of political will (and/or community support) to push back against 
new WGs that lack the energy or the clue to be doing what they propose 
to do.    Sometimes, IMO, it's because IETF has a longstanding Bad Habit 
of trying to mask tussles by spinning up lots of narrowly focused WGs 
with non-overlapping scope.

But mostly, IMO, ADs are overloaded because we're trying to use 
volunteers to do what should be paid positions with limited terms.