Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

John Leslie <john@widor3.jlc.net> Tue, 05 November 2019 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <john@widor3.jlc.net>
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 6837112001A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:58:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 1Zhz_hw3u6MH; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from widor3.jlc.net (unknown [68.233.165.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AB3120089; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by widor3.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id B3E6B62042; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:57:59 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:57:59 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@widor3.jlc.net>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>, "nomcom-chair-2019@ietf.org" <nomcom-chair-2019@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/bLWWpRcHVOgIoxv3A0GGbCKAbpg>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:21:57 -0800
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 16:16:04 -0000

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>;