Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Sat, 09 November 2019 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.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 78822120096 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:12:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 bRLIzED7mWB0; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151F11200F7; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john@jck.com>) id 1iTRTm-000GEe-RO; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 09:12:42 -0500
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 09:12:37 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: John Leslie <john@widor3.jlc.net>
cc: nomcom-chair-2019@ietf.org, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Message-ID: <A0FD0FB4731A420424C65431@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <20191105155759.GC53355@widor3.jlc.net>
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> <20191105155759.GC53355@widor3.jlc.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OUU08DyrGCj7DhF33vdWPAiWO5A>
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: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 14:12:46 -0000

(top post)

Let me add one additional comment to John's description of the
problem, which which I largely agree. He suggested that it had
become "entirely too difficult to say no to any new-group
proposal".   I suggest that it has gotten even more difficult to
say no to anything emerging from a working group, no matter how
ill-conceived.  Statistics about how long documents were sitting
in IESG evaluation, waiting for AD, or waiting for new draft
states might be very illuminating about this.

best,
  john


--On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 10:57 -0500 John Leslie
<john@widor3.jlc.net>; wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 07:54:52PM +0000, 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?
> 
>    The whole process would break. :^(
> 
>    (I don't know whether that's good or bad...)
> 
>    Beyond question, the workload has become oppressive.
> 
>    Different IETF-Chairs have different approaches. Adapting
> to these changes, IMHO, has been challenging for IESG members.
> 
>    But the long-term trend has been to make it entirely too
> difficult to say no to any new-group proposal. A pair of
> WG-chairs is appointed, and the AD's don't have time to follow
> the actual process.
> 
>    Some WGCs listen very carefully to AD advice; others don't.
> Some ADs give very good advice early; others don't.
> 
>    But there's an endemic problem: enough of the hoi-polloi
> see each WG as the only possible way to "solve" their problem;
> and they develop tunnel vision. Thus anyone other than the AD
> who points out a problem is facing a cliff-like wall of
> resistance.
> 
>    This leads to problems entombed in published RFCs.
> 
>    It is rare for these problems to be solved -- ever.
> 
>    Beating your head against these entombed problems
> _seriously_ reduces the enthusiasm of ordinary IETF-ers to
> devote full-time to our process.
> 
>    :^( :^( :^(
> 
>    (Having basically retired from my full-time job, I have
> perhaps enough time available to work on this, but nowhere
> near enough money to cover $50,000 per year of out-of pocket
> expenses.) (Also, I hate air travel!)
> 
>    But perhaps, somebody else will explore alternatives to
> selecting only employer-sponsored folks for the IESG...
> 
> --
> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;
>