Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>