Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/21/21 1:43 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> If we think we need more churn in ADs, the solution is some combination
>> of finding/grooming more good candidates and making it easier for people
>> to serve, so that the nomcom has better candidates to choose from.
> I think this is a really key point: I would rather see us put the
> effort into figuring out how to scale the AD job so that more good
> people are willing and able to do it.  I think that's critical to the
> IETF's long-term viability.

We have this problem in the IETF that we're really not very good at 
saying "no" to taking on new work of dubious value, and we're even worse 
at saying "no" to a working group that wants to extend its charter past 
its original work items and/or timeframe.

There's a related problem in that the entire IESG is essentially the 
review panel for every IETF Consensus action and for many more decisions 
also.   Even though IESG has streamlined these discussions considerably 
over the years, in some sense, every new AD increases the complexity of 
making decisions.

But from where I sit, the biggest problem is that we have too many WGs, 
and too many that exist for too long.   We need to focus on what's of 
core importance for the Internet, and also try to actually do more 
relevant work than we have been doing.

Keith