Re: Cost vs. Benefit of Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture Area

[[e-mail] (Scott Bradner)]

One David opines

- we need two more people out of the community who are going to spend
  a lot of their time on the administrative side of our organization
  instead of producing real work for the IETF.

>> ADs do not have to stop doing useful work - many ADs (and even a
>> chair
>> or two) have done useful technical work while doing teh AD role

- IETF documents will receive more scrutiny in the IESG. While this
  could be considered a good thing, there has been a significant
  amount of backlash in the community that enough is enough. I for one
  believe that we currently already provide enough review, and possibly
  already too much.

>> I assume you mean 2 more people looking at things
>> I'm not sure this will make a significant difference to the flow
>> through the IESG which I always found to be more dependent on
>> the pickyest AD not the number of ADs

- Management research has shown that optimal group sizes are in
  general quite a bit smaller than the current IESG. In fact, I see
  already significant strains within the IESG due to our group size.

>> imo - the size of the IESG has been more than some would consider
>> ideal for quite a while, I do not think that adding two more ADs
>> will do additional harm to its functionality - I think the more
>> important issue is how the IESG operates & reviews things - maybe
>> things have changed since I was on the IESG but in those days
>> there were only a few ADs that were consistently active on the
>> mailing list when we were discussing  "big" issues - a few more 
>> active folk would actually have helped in those days

An IESG that doesn't operate efficiently is not in the benefit of the IETF.

>> agreed, but imo, that problem is already there and is 
>> quite independent of the number of ADs

I believe it is very dangerous to add an area before addressing the
issues associated with a larger IESG

>> fwiw, I disagree with this because I think that the proposal
>> will add people who can dedicate more attention to this set
>> of WGs and I think that is a good thing - see above, I think
>> the optimal size may have been exceeded a while back but
>> I think that adding two additional folk would produce
>> more positives than negatives at this point

Another approach could be to do serious surgery on how the IESG
operates to make it a more scalable group.

>> I think this should be done (and have proposed some ideas 
>> in the past) but I expect it to take quite a while and I'd like
>> to get focused attention on this (conceptionial) area in the 
>> meantime

Another David opines
If we applied much more strict quality, relevance and timeliness
measures to the existing IETF load, we would probably get rid of 
1/3 to 1/2 of our current activities.  And possibly more.

>> that is an option, but I expect that the level of IETF work would 
>> not change much, the work would just be distributed among 
>> fewer WGs  (but I do not doubt that some number of existing WGs
>> should be closed for one reason or another)


Scott




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf