Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

John Leslie <> Tue, 05 November 2019 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6837112001A for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:58:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.103
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Zhz_hw3u6MH; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AB3120089; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:58:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (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 <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Cc: "Livingood, Jason" <>, Paul Wouters <>, Kyle Rose <>, "" <>, ietf <>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:21:57 -0800
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 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 <>