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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 08 November 2019 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 A4E04120870 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:50:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 UdwtIpEE7xwS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:50:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E33CC12085B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:50:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2121:283:c860:5cf:f858:ab78:eeb1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CFEE4E11B44 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:50:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD94721F38C8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0100 (CET)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0100
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> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <0053C5D9-E4D7-4BE0-9B73-3B7FC25561FB@akamai.com> <f0069562-5b4b-3a08-124f-1a8d24dfd0cd@cs.tcd.ie> <e7ebf607-cbf8-8ebf-9dca-0aec96ff517d@gmail.com> <20191105092422.GA61969@kduck.mit.edu> <ca7a87c8-d841-c13c-3131-aa44acac226f@gmail.com> <C6AA7609-A36F-41A5-83A3-960ED7330211@cisco.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <C6AA7609-A36F-41A5-83A3-960ED7330211@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <B788C8DF-9660-4041-9E9A-567F0B104B5A@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NH5GuX8xwVbbA3novGWS-j_KNoA>
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 09:50:04 -0000

I have for a long time been uncomfortable with the level of document changes that happens after the document leaves the working group.

From my perspective I would have preferred a document process, where the working group "owned" the document until publication.

For cross-area issues:
The responsible AD together with the chairs should identify cross-area conflicts and need for collboration earlier in the process. And as chairs/responsible ADs escalate cross area issues, those should be discussed in the IESG while document is in the working group.

If a document isn't good enough, the IESG should send it back to the working group. Not try to "fix" it themselves (often in a small group between chairs, authors and ADs).

Basically I want the IESG for leadership. I want the IESG for quality control. I do not want the IESG to have to read every document, nitpick or even (gasp) override working group consensus.

Executive summary: More leadership less document editing.

Cheers,
Ole