Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:
Re: Doing the Right Things?)
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Tue Jun 3 04:53:01 CEST 2003
--On Tuesday, 03 June, 2003 06:41 +0300
"john.loughney at nokia.com" <john.loughney at nokia.com> wrote:
> Actually, at the moment, I don't think it matters if there is
> a massive IESG conspiracy or not. Trusting the IESG is
> irrelevant, IMO. One feature that has really become apparent
> to me is that the IESG is facing scaling problems. If mails
> to ADs don't get answered within a reasonable time because ADs
> suffer from too much going on, I am not so sure adding to the
> IESG burden will be a good thing.
John, I've been arguing that the IESG is seriously overloaded
and suffering from scaling problems and that we need to do
something, or several things, to reduce the load for five years
or so. And I've been doing it fairly loudly. So have others.
Certainly, there are many signs and symptoms that look, from the
outside, like overload -- slow responses to mail to ADs and
apparently-unreasonable delays in document handling perhaps
heading the list. In that same period, we have gotten the
tracking system: it may have taken too long to get in place, it
certainly helps with transparency, but I have no idea what the
additional reporting requirements actually do to workload and
whether they are balanced (in load terms) efficiencies in
keeping track of things.
But, the tracking system possibly excepted, the IESG has
regularly, almost relentlessly, added to its load over that
period. In every single case, taken one at a time, there has
been a good reason to add to load or to reject or ignore a
proposal to reduce the load. E.g.,
* If I work on, or partially rewrite, that document,
rather than just bouncing it back to the WG or author, I
can make it better.
* This may never go to draft, so let's take the time to
get those last 100 technical and editorial nits fixed.
* Proposal to enforce benchmarks and give WGs more
authority relative to ADs? Really would not work and
would eliminate vital cross-area review.
* Proposal to reduce the number of WGs, or put a ceiling
on them? Too ruthless, not really practical, takes
important flexibility out of the system.
* We aren't getting enough detail in some areas in
documents submitted to us, so let's add another required
section or more fixed requirements about how sections
are written.
* Need a liaison to XXX? An IESG member should take it
on, since only they really know what is going on in the
work area.
* Add a new AD, even temporarily, to deal with problem
area YYY? Nope, the IESG is too big already, this would
upset the balance of things, it takes too long to bring
a new person up to speed, such a position is a bad idea
anyway except maybe as a temporary position, and
temporary positions are better filled internally.
There are more examples, some better and some worse. The thing
that is important about the ones I can identify is that every
single one of them, examined by itself, is completely rational.
All of the paraphrased assertions and conclusions in the list
above are reasonable and valid, again, taken one at a time.
Maybe SIRS will help and be the exception, but it would be easy
to construct arguments against it too -- I can imagine the
administrative/ policy burdens of actually maintaining/
administering the list and qualifications as being burdensome.
If one is amused by such things, it is possible to construct
fanciful conspiracy theories to "explain". I know enough of the
IESG members to just not believe them. And Occam's Razor
suggests easier explanations. I'm reminded a bit of "80 hours a
week and loving it" bumper stickers.
My new-this-week working hypothesis is that, whether they appear
objectively overloaded or not, we need to stop making decisions
based on the assumption that they are. We can't reduce the
workload against their desires to take on extra tasks, their
inability to refuse new ones, or their inclination to expand the
IESG's role on a "this is important, someone needs to do it, and
we are the obvious answer" basis.
If an AD isn't being responsive, tell it to the Nomcom, possibly
with advice that they pick someone who is strongly committed to
turning away more work, rather than willing to add it. If you
can't wait that long, and _really_ think it is that bad, think
about recalls. But, IMO, our saying "we can't think about doing
it that way because the IESG is overloaded and/or suffering
scaling problems" is pointless until and unless the IESG is
demonstrably ready to start making hard decisions to reduce
those problems... And we had been be ready to support them,
strongly, when they do start making those decisions, because,
for any given one of them, _someone_ is going to be really
unhappy.
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list