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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 05 November 2019 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE4D120C1D for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:55:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 t3G5cGSCb7i7; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CCEA120C19; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l24so15641968pgh.10; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:55:00 -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=UIpcJ8EVOr9LschbGhFHCoUoukR4qeo3satRucr/AAk=; b=UdF0bwU1JRuU8vYMnNo1d6JPhmRCV91a91enNUzE8KUYotdz7DTNK0zagPYw/dd8FK /TdiICsmZ5InWokVwwvDyd6HZsqDggV1CYbshBxdzv11AcwzpG9UQvLKs6nbRUZn5c+b s2N36S9BQqPHRfmfymBBGAQUFYQu28CGe5J0msKSmDhgmJsGIf5svAVWSlLtk0ua2N0P 2eW/SwvurecHT3yWw4k9gtufq10nZCMxqCGWSGjhPR38KQCv61FetXt4ChOFWLUjPgXe hJJFKzG1yeq+jNRZBg6khtGklwzxU0EQ3/CMuLVhw/qYZefsXQJlfa8KEUsZGBees0yk 3HbQ==
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=UIpcJ8EVOr9LschbGhFHCoUoukR4qeo3satRucr/AAk=; b=iwZhhE+ax7c4ZroSF1MPARK2NWQhrBOhqDWoOahniI/N2b8W8+C8ZdVaAkSdfaXb67 Y3UcXZt+iBtY4lO0xyqwrrHEUBQCLxUQgAIBdd/FoEs6F5QsU2cuz8gos5pB/qNrYrgf putuu4Jj8D//wcr2PwqaFVEZLwkuEqXEYgimyyWA4Ko9hJBxsFkkN9ls2MUCwPxMa77O PBOi4dbE3Oq3m72zcOdJzd2gRUzcoBw/Rqk0yk4adyEdEah0/xkereAkCEcODOrbjO79 7BBGLd7myCuvXbEahzO+8xdZdKob4CFRL/2jnhGfG++WMNsf9vz0KGXB59kcxTYZv63j vGUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWtA5saTX5NDyt39KtqnYwxRykO5SocW0GRjf5FSenyXK8mVNcE QLbXO/BW1pt+JTSmUCESEb2LAhKl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwnuAmuCBAYIcfIeGziEt4vr0qCjTeG+gcvHjR1vOuqMwNiXsW7RsYFdU4i1/5QW7T7ukyRuw==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8edd:: with SMTP id b29mr4610250pfr.23.1572994499665; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v16sm520667pje.1.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
To: ietf <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 11:54:56 +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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 22:55:09 -0000

On 05-Nov-19 22:24, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> The past few generic IESG job descriptions (as sent to Nomcom) have had
> some interesting text in this front (quoting from
> % An AD should be able to personally review every Internet-Draft that they
> % sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs to be satisfied that
> % adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review these
> % documents as well. 

I'm sure the last clause is true, but maybe it's an error to include it in the job description almost as if it is a duty.

On 06-Nov-19 05:35, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:

> 1) AD are 'responsible' so they do need to check the intensive work of WG, shepherd, IETF last call and directorate

Yes, but that does *not* necessarily require this:

> 6) reviews are probably 50% of our time

And Eric also said:

> 2) sometimes the directorate reviews come too late for the IESG ballot for approval

In that case, perhaps the response should be to defer the ballot automatically, and make it public that the reason is a late review.

Also, do some areas only request telechat reviews? In my experience in Gen-ART, most issues and fixes occur during Last Call reviews, so that the telechat review is often a formality.

On 06-Nov-19 08:17, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:

>> Does every AD read all the drafts?  I don't know.  But changing the process to say one AD from each area would reduce the load.
> Some divide it up.  Pete & Barry had a split.  If there was a big load, Stephen would start from one end of the list and I'd start from the other.  We both mostly wanted to 'read' them all though.

The word that stands out for me is "wanted". Similarly, it's because I *want* to track the technology that I've been a Gen-ART reviewer for many years. But if (as people say every year at about this time) we really need to reduce the AD workload to something more like part-time, some things have to change.

It seems to me that the IESG itself can make such changes, since this is a matter of procedures rather than our formal rules. It's too late for this year, but maybe next year's NomCom could have an easier job.