Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 04 November 2019 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D816120099 for <>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:29:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 7ve5ODiYA2EU; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:29:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8145512002E; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:29:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e4so12373719pgs.1; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:29:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bfy1vJbZuvqXIfDQgulZN/piRYPdkkMQoJP3/MIAEkQ=; b=lvQesaqT3SS7kfuahcNMUkfp9Y4jyvHDnmt7KKbzCAB7K4ap8yuBhIx2Ap3FKu4Ol8 qcmteTlqRB34Uefz1sq7c4BI3SuR1ZvjvLS8ZhPwYaiPQJxtpEUuUpuOoz4Zimdh7JTG 8ylbueSiMRHJkFN9POcVXmkpNdn5i7IeT0GclYVG8f4BOsmP+KR9baEYvQk7sDRqf28r EZpwmWfwiqiocLBlHBlgsepeYpvk7iE0MeQk3gO/S5XfJBDIZ5TlSELmmudmKVpjllAK Cj6jYxFsDPdtGPlpsrIsA/5BU7hCk66jDNNtpJNGohvyI8joaFyV6LiWydAGv7ZaaDkH H5wQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bfy1vJbZuvqXIfDQgulZN/piRYPdkkMQoJP3/MIAEkQ=; b=lwA1AU8jPJITE6HnMrPipnkE9nYoL14nXkvt/5w42C8nxuVl7ct+rcEdrvLaKV8CUx j9O9Xf6i/yT3WwSfuGMx2csZ5NpB4KMkXouaFcKx8QPhp78fq0i/9eV7FxiMA3PDD4kj Ha1MzpjQm5efDrDiwk9FmsO+wxs1bXFqt2+7lmsgPBwhPpZUIExr/LhbAnRwGk4zPvGn zBkMZbtgLNdPbAN/qfmBxuezekEKPxN2P33XYhd6RbQomygzFcYuog/ybrwNr4XSphVM h1qWDqkFHUhrQj83l2b8SQD/0njkPZuQTmCbAz3HLRXp3uZP3U0lPk/FWxj+PMmnFrDW wstQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXWGru5O/jM4LpSfzbxXXvYdYg/IKPeFZZZGY3A08sMmHa1njsv ojOAvTpE9nynyFLII9eV6jn1kgKf2fg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyNw2ccLJD4eJ5Wvga3G/Rfq25QGxuZiXKekeT7i+nmTO/6DoKUSRpsZbn3OkYcK8P6Vzd6ig==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ba17:: with SMTP id s23mr1656952pjr.78.1572902958731; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id s202sm18988649pfs.24.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
To: "Salz, Rich" <>, "Livingood, Jason" <>, Paul Wouters <>, Kyle Rose <>
Cc: "" <>, ietf <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:29:13 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 21:29:22 -0000

On 05-Nov-19 08:54, 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?

Wouldn't work. An IESG of that size would be impossible to run like the current IESG, which is already too big to be cohesive. It would become more like a parliament and even less like a steering group.

If we want the IESG job to be more reasonably sized, we have to take work away from the ADs. As far as I can see, that means taking away their duty of acting as final reviewers. I don't want to name names because I don't think the ADs are to be blamed individually, but some of them spend *enormous* effort on detailed reviews. Either we have to trust the WGs more, or we have to trust the various review teams more, and allow the IESG to steer, which its name implies is its main job. And sign off on drafts that are good enough, rather than seeking perfection.

This is hardly a new discussion, but we just let it drift each year, after the NomCom season is over.