Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt
moore at cs.utk.edu
Fri Feb 28 10:27:16 CET 2003
I agree with Brian that section 2.4 is in need of substantial rewrite.
(again, I'll send detailed comments later - they're in an editing buffer
on a machine at work and I've been home for several days recovering from
However I agree with Ran in that it's not appropriate for this document
to presume a solution path.
(it's difficult for us to not talk about solutions, isn't it?)
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:40:13 -0500
RJ Atkinson <rja at extremenetworks.com> wrote:
> For what its worth, I disagree with Brian about Section 2.4.
> I'm on the IAB (until I escape next month) and have had similar
> visibility into things (caveat: IAB chair sits on IESG telechats,
> so Brian has done that and I haven't). I've also been a WG Chair
> whose had trouble advancing documents (OTP WG) in the past.
> Brian's comments *presume* that the solution is IESG delegation,
> whereas the existing text says that the problem is concentration.
> I agree that the problem is concentration (among other things,
> many former and some current IESG folks say it creates too much
> workload for the IESG members).
> Delegation by IESG is one possible fix.
> Redistributing responsibility is another possible fix.
> Other potential fixes likely also exist.
> I don't want to presume any particular fix, just note that too
> much workload in one place is currently a problem. In effect,
> we have an existence proof that the current organisational schema
> does not scale in practice.
> So I very much like the current text.
More information about the Problem-statement