Re: WGs/AD [IETF areas re-organisation steps]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alia,

On 27/12/2014 08:59, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter < 
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/12/2014 06:46, Alia Atlas wrote: ...
>>>> I'm a little bit surprised that the RTG area load has gone up 
>>>> like this, and so quickly.  Is it the various SDN things that 
>>>> are pushing this, or is it
>>>> that the RTG area currently has the most enthusiasm for YANG 
>>>> work?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's a mixture of things combined with RTG already being at the 
>>> very top edge of workload.  In RTG we have/will have about 21
>>> active WGs; if we add a third routing AD, then RTG will absorb 3
>>> WGs from INT. Granted that one is not active and may be merged
>>> in, we are still looking at about 23 WGs for RTG with a more
>>> average load being about 8 WGs/AD.
>> 
>> So let's be frank about this. Today (excluding the General Area AD
>> with his crippling load of 1 WG) we have 129 WGs for 14 Ads,
>> which is 9.2 WGs/AD. That is clearly too many, so should there be
>> a target ratio and a plan for reaching it?
>> 
> 
> No, as you well know, it depends on the size and business of the
> WGs, the management load, etc., as well as the number.  Clearly we
> don't want to not create new WGs when appropriate nor to discourage 
> existing useful work.

Of course, an average is only an average, but the point is: we've
had about 125 WGs for at least ten years now, and we've had
over-burdened ADs for all that time. That seems to be a fundamental
problem, regardless of the sort of adjustments the IESG is currently
proposing.

There are two words in your second sentence above implying a value
judgment: "appropriate" and "useful". Unfortunately, as far as I can
tell, the only way to truly manage the IESG workload is by raising
the bar for "appropriate" and "useful". (The same applies to
the bar for a WG to adopt a particular work item.)

> This is a question of balancing load and there is a surge of 
> YANG-related work which does require more focused management.  Is it 
> better to have 2 ADs at 100%-120% and others with less load when the 
> size of the IESG would be otherwise reduced.  Are you suggesting
> that suggesting another routing AD to take load from RTG and INT is a
> bad idea compared to dropping the IESG to 14 & eventually 13?

No, I was specifically trying to avoid being specific. I think we have a
general long-term problem.

It's entirely appropriate for the IESG to propose workload re-balancing
to deal with the current workload. I may have some quibbles, but it's the
IESG's decision.

> Are you simply concerned with the dynamics of how many ADs have the 
> various perspectives on the IESG?
> 
> Obviously, we are looking for feedback and opinions and ideas.  Do 
> you have other well thought out suggestions?

In terms of the long-term problem, unless I am mistaken, neither the IESG
nor the community has ever said much about how to make the judgment calls
that new work is useful and appropriate for the IETF. We've got a very
good document to help BOF proponents (RFC 5434) but I don't think we've
ever tackled the next bit: deciding whether this work should be chartered?

One result of that is that proponents who have what they think is a
successful BOF are sometimes very puzzled and frustrated by their
failure to form a WG. Another result is that it's a bit harder for
the IESG to say "no" than it would be if the decision criteria were
a bit more transparent. A third aspect is that every new IESG member
has to discover for herself how this vital bit of the process works
on the inside.

I think my suggestion is that to have any serious hope of controlling
the workload *in the long term*, we need to have something (it could be
an IESG statement, it could be an RFC) the stakes out a position on
what it means for a WG or work item to be judged appropriate and useful.

Regards
   Brian