Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 07 November 2019 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF40120AD9 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:14:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Wtp_cHkDogF for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0050120A26 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253833897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:11:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C996913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:14:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To:, Jari Arkko <>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:14:16 -0500
Message-ID: <11796.1573157656@localhost>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:14:19 -0000

Keith Moore <> wrote:
    > Or to put it differently:  I don't think it scales so long as there is
    > essentially no pushback on chartering any WG for which there appears to be
    > community interest.

    > Note that there's not a contradiction there.  The ADs really are in the best
    > position to review things from a broad perspective. AND with the current
    > number of working groups and number of drafts that they're producing, there's
    > too much work for the ADs to do.

My impression from the regular plenary reports on attendance my impression is
that the number of people involved in the IETF is declining, yet the number
of RFCs being processed is going up.

And the number of conflicts seems to be going up because so many more people
are involved in quite a range of WGs.   How does this compare to ten years
ago?  I'm not even sure I know what number I want to ask for here.

Jari, can you tell if we have more unique authors from your stats system?
Are we individually producing more documents?  Are we collaborating across
communities more often, which is why we have more conflicts?

It seems like it must be that more of the people involved are writing
documents.  Did we have more people who were exclusively "tourists" before?

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-