Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Burger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> There is obviously no easy fix.  If there was, we would have fixed it, obviously.
>
> What I find interesting is after saying there is nothing we can do, you go on to make a few concrete proposals, like bringing the directorates more into the process.  It is thinking like that, how to do things different, that will get us out of the bind we have made for ourselves.
>
> Note that I am not married to the idea of expanding the role of directorates. I am married to the idea that we can think ourselves outside of the box.
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:07 AM, "Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 13:18, Eric Burger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I will say it again - the IETF is organized by us.  Therefore, this situation is created by us.  We have the power to fix it.  We have to want to fix it.  Saying there is nothing we can do because this is the way it is is the same as saying we do not WANT to fix it.
>>
>> what is "the fix"?
>>
>> The IETF is set up so that the top level leadership requires technical expertise. It is not only a management job. This is a key differentiator to other SDOs, and IMO it shows in the quality of the output we produce. The reason the RFCs are typically of very good quality is that the same eyeballs go over all documents before they go out. This creates a level of uniformity that is otherwise difficult to achieve. But it requires technical expertise on the top, and it requires a significant investment of time.
[MB] Personally, I'm not at all seeing this concept of uniformity in
terms of the output. I don't even see consistency amongst documents
for specific WGs.  We can't even agree how normative language should
be used in documents.  I've been a gen-art reviewer for 9.5 years and
we don't even come close to producing consistent documents.  I fully
agree that there is significant value in the cross area reviews, in
particular for security.  But, I personally think that can happen as
effectively at the directorate review as at the IESG level of review.
[/MB]
>>
>> I don't see how we can maintain the quality of our output if we turn the AD position into a management job.
[MB] I don't think anyone is suggesting to turn it into just a
management job.  It still requires someone with significant technical
expertise in other areas. I don't think there's anyone hanging around
in IETF that's being considered for IESG positions that doesn't have
significant technical expertise in some areas.  This problem has been
around since I was Nomcom chair, so it seems that there is no easy
solution - would there be a way to split the role, so that you do have
a solid technical advisor, they just have to bother with reviewing
documents unless they are brought to their attention and they don't
have to worry about managing the day to day activities of WGs.  I
would be curious to know the typically time split between these two
tasks for the average AD.   [/MB]

Especially when technical expertise is delegated to bodies that rely
on volunteers. Don't get me wrong, the work done in the various
directorates is awesome, but it's often difficult to get them to apply
a uniform measure when reviewing, and it's also difficult to get them
to stick to deadlines. They're volunteers, after all.
[MB] This is where some people management skills come into place. [/MB]
>>
>> And, as Joel said earlier, unless we delegate the right to raise and clear discusses to the directorates as well, the AD still needs to be able to understand and defend a technical argument on behalf of a reviewer.
[MB] That's true, but the effort is typically in identifying the
discuss and my perspective would be that the AD would consult with the
reviewer before clearing a discuss.  I do find it quite puzzling that
folks seem to think the ADs are the only ones qualified to review and
identify issues in documents at this stage.  For my documents, while I
think the ADs might have identified gaps or areas where clarification
would be useful, but I haven't found those to be of more value than
gen-art reviews, for example.
[/MB]
If there is a controversy, the time for that involvement dwarfs the
time needed for the initial review.
>>
>> There is no easy fix. Well, maybe the WGs could stop wanting to publish so many documents...
>>
>> Lars
>