Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]

Mark Nottingham <> Wed, 06 November 2019 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE13120828 for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:23:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=N7snUbxz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=CUkTnnZA
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5yVxqxs7TYW7; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47F9D120826; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7337A21B34; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:23:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 21:23:06 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=H 9yAEEo/O7KO4377YPqXvPueGwiWIq4S2VkYREitjUE=; b=N7snUbxzzN065YEEN g3zZjhBKVrc/SGcqyiZ7k3fmFIFbElNIykZab8l52ZhaZUv/qrqYZ5tFl2r7mZL/ AiCiVnuQ6rNx1y2enMjOASOqckmgRfqYhA9fDvSsbs6XCCjgfvFfeEPvbEx03hvU W3Jpvn4sb3WthDsaJ05oHaKL8IIyey9qT4lhIai/sl8r5y2WjEwqM9NBSms9vGpi egAUVMyceSvta4z6BCSdIavh9gD4WUqGc0LsMzl8j2kbs4Q5ZBCZnwxRLbkU+lRk GTn1nWXLdAFqXmLiM+/N+QEYODJBqHXQ+tNw+FvkB41InActgI3dCEkWNJwt8qhB 5t6Aw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=H9yAEEo/O7KO4377YPqXvPueGwiWIq4S2VkYREitj UE=; b=CUkTnnZAc6M6mLjgAAA7ImCZg64eo3cdk2miTcBd6RgspA+VW/E91hLcZ 96sDKT7kzVmpVOtketJgITZ86/2qHoRg6V6Kxrkoetc6bk7EH1WXIo5/3KVsUdqy HBs0cj4R34T7qXkxGJINCFdHAYKf2teV51BQktw1+MPJWIyGi8viddi2ltmaK1bM sHrvGYZlFmDHbHcvwleEz+qH1U5rF4/oEaKAKkeSyNVy0kTpgLbYFZMJSKePteN8 KsuGsIvyjP8KsQm3MC6meaU5yZb/Axa3DNUsbZAbeb+kGgzCNANxtS1XsibXgRuH kmWrcWC1RDBaYDFjcdpltd5a2AcKw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ii7CXaL2lWIV5wR8pOshOwyR4mC6eQtZkDcBHOie-14geXmKn30xCg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudduiedggeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinh epihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudduledrudejrdduheekrddv hedunecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuve hluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ii7CXQmsWCxJlWVlXQEEfxreMuvdhdzDZnsnaO3acZiRdgOvXZEzLg> <xmx:ii7CXdUFbSJL40bcqeMZpraFJkG4EIgOxwiyiHKhx5mJXbldoL0QaA> <xmx:ii7CXavvebwszZQuT8kSlmn4F-4tvSJd1YtVq1ruycbbZ57z76t2nw> <xmx:ii7CXZhGZgqzdWGvltEQwg7LAoILNcHiWGIspqtnDLn9MJ1a9xhCHw>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C32128005B; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:23:04 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 13:22:59 +1100
Cc: ietf <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 02:23:28 -0000

+1 to the Brian's thoughts below.

I think this is one of the most important things we as a community need to address; we have a culture of expecting "heroes" to step up and take this job. That's going to bite us, sooner or later.


> On 6 Nov 2019, at 9:54 am, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> On 05-Nov-19 22:24, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> ....
>> The past few generic IESG job descriptions (as sent to Nomcom) have had
>> some interesting text in this front (quoting from
>> % An AD should be able to personally review every Internet-Draft that they
>> % sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs to be satisfied that
>> % adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review these
>> % documents as well. 
> I'm sure the last clause is true, but maybe it's an error to include it in the job description almost as if it is a duty.
> On 06-Nov-19 05:35, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> 1) AD are 'responsible' so they do need to check the intensive work of WG, shepherd, IETF last call and directorate
> Yes, but that does *not* necessarily require this:
>> 6) reviews are probably 50% of our time
> And Eric also said:
>> 2) sometimes the directorate reviews come too late for the IESG ballot for approval
> In that case, perhaps the response should be to defer the ballot automatically, and make it public that the reason is a late review.
> Also, do some areas only request telechat reviews? In my experience in Gen-ART, most issues and fixes occur during Last Call reviews, so that the telechat review is often a formality.
> On 06-Nov-19 08:17, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>> Does every AD read all the drafts?  I don't know.  But changing the process to say one AD from each area would reduce the load.
>> Some divide it up.  Pete & Barry had a split.  If there was a big load, Stephen would start from one end of the list and I'd start from the other.  We both mostly wanted to 'read' them all though.
> The word that stands out for me is "wanted". Similarly, it's because I *want* to track the technology that I've been a Gen-ART reviewer for many years. But if (as people say every year at about this time) we really need to reduce the AD workload to something more like part-time, some things have to change.
> It seems to me that the IESG itself can make such changes, since this is a matter of procedures rather than our formal rules. It's too late for this year, but maybe next year's NomCom could have an easier job.
>   Brian

Mark Nottingham