--On Monday, March 24, 2025 15:51 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We also discussed how to lighten the workload of ADs in > draft-rsalz-less-ad-work which was presented at IETF 177 > GENDISPATCH meeting. Our goal was to have the ADs measure where > they spent their time so that we could make smart decisions about > workload. Warren Kumari made a couple of posts on the topic, but > everyone else thought it not worth their time. Interested parties > might want to watch the video and/or check the mailing list. Doing it at IETF 117 would be a true accomplishment? 112? Something else? >From what I remember of that discussion, it might have contributed a bit to draft-eggert-ietf-chair-may-delegate, which also fizzled out. However, it seems to me that Dean's (IMO excellent even if not quite complete) summary could be the beginning of a different discussion. The earlier ones were about reducing the workload while, AFAICT, retaining the responsibilities. A careful look at how the role has changed from when our procedures were built around it, which of those changes were carefully thought out and agreed by the community, and whether (and how) the roles might be adjusted today, e.g., not to reduce the workload but to change it in fundamental ways. If this could be turned into one or more proposals, should it be routed to the procon list? Should a discussion about how to generate such proposals go to there? Somewhere else? Or is one of the things not on Dean's list but possibly implied by the experience you mention above that, for whatever reason (including "too overloaded to think about it), the IESG is unable or unwilling to consider any process that might lead to significant changes in the IESG and its role? john
