RE: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI)Area

Bill,

>On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 14:36, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
>> If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this 
>> would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area 
>> would be one way to reduce this could be one solution.
>
>Why do you think this would make any difference in practice?  
>chances are that an AD-pair would agree to hold a DISCUSS if 
>either felt that an issue should block publication.

What I meant was that the IESG spends a lot of time on document review.
I don't think anyone has complained that there is not enough document
review.  If we add more ADs, then we will be increasing the amount
of document review.  Is this something we should need?  I think David
put it quite well that scheduling IESG calls, meetings and retreats
is already problematic - adding more ADs will not improve things.

Would a re-organization of the current set of areas solve the same
thing?
If the problem is that certain WGs are not getting enough management
time, then would increased usage of Technical Advisors (which is already
done) improve things?  

My read of most of the current responses on this thread is that the SIP
& related working groups are feeling pressure in the current Transport
Area, so some re-arrangement is needed.  What I haven't seen is how
having more ADs involved would actually improve things.

John

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf