Hi Dean,
At 05:11 AM 24-03-2025, ivandean@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Multiple discussion on the email lists, in person, plenary and being
NomCom chair for the past 12 months, let me to think about the AD
role and how it has changed over the years (we could say decades).
What do we want AD to be? It is getting harder and harder to get
nominees for AD positions and it could be due to ever expanding
responsibilities. Maybe we have to be more critical in what work we
are adopting, break up the workload types between different roles,
maybe we have to use more tools to help reduce the AD workloads, but
going forward people expecting ADs to be everything under the Sun is
not sustainable.
1. Growth in Scale and Complexity
Early Days: Initially, ADs managed fewer Working Groups (WGs), had
smaller workloads, and focused on a more limited set of protocols.
Now: Today, ADs manage larger portfolios of WGs, deal with broader
technical and governance responsibilities, and handle a
significantly larger volume of documents and drafts.
Thanks for sharing the comments on the Area Director role.
Here's some minutes from 2005:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2020-iesg-03-202002061500/
and from 2020:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2005-iesg-01-200501061630/
I could not find much of a change in regards to governance
responsibilities. The number of IETF RFCs published in 2005 was 327
while the number for 2020 was 209. The number of RFCs published in
2024 was 159. It does not look, at a glance, that there is
significantly more output from the IETF side.
3. Broader Technical Focus and Cross-Area Collaboration
Early Days: ADs primarily operated within their own technical
domain, rarely interacting closely with other areas.
Now: Todays protocols frequently cross multiple technical areas,
requiring ADs to collaborate more broadly across the IETF and IAB
(Internet Architecture Board), driving more holistic architectural
coherence and interdisciplinary work.
Last year, the IAB published two reports on its workshops and one RFC
with the word "architecture" in it. Here's the latest report from
the IAB to the community:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/122/materials/slides-122-ietf-sessa-iab-report-to-the-community-for-ietf-122-00.pdf
It doesn't look like there is much public information on the
architectural coherence work. The demarcation line between areas can
a bit fuzzy. It has been like that since quite some time.
4. Emphasis on Transparency and Accountability
Early Days: Processes were somewhat informal, relying heavily on
personal relationships and informal consensus-building.
Now: There is a strong emphasis on transparency, accountability,
clear documentation of decisions, community consultation, and
adherence to well-defined procedures.
I assume that the "personal relationship" comment is from 2004. The
processes or procedures have not changed significantly since
then. The IESG publishes more information about its membership for
informational purposes. That is a positive step in comparison with
the yesteryears. I glanced over some old records. The then-IETF [1]
was actually more transparent. At some point in time, that
documentation turned into "please read the archives".
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. There was better documentation of decisions.
