If the goal is to fix problems, from where I sit it would be far
more effective to articulate problems and suggest solutions.
Discussing the changes over time seems almost irrelevant. I am
not claiming there are not problems in the current structure. I
presume there are, although I would love to see other folks views
on what those are. And I am not claiming that there is not
significant difficulty in filling posts. There clearly is. It
goes back a long ways.
Most of the proposed fixes I have seen over th years have serious drawbacks. I hope there are ways to improve things without such drawbacks.
Yours,
Joel
Joel,
The number of WG is more or less stable around 110, it went at one point to 130, but also went down to 100. It is the amount of active documents. Currently there are 2210 active drafts (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/all/). Back in 2000 (not 100% sure about the number, but best effort), there were about 1200 active drafts across same number of WG and areas. This is almost 50% increase in number of documents to track and review.
Although the number of published RFCs per year has declined (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcs-per-year/) by 30% (comparing 2000 to 2024).We had hard time finding volunteers for several areas (OPS, INT, ART) and companies are cutting down on the IETF participation and are less inclined to support full time IETF positions. At the same time, there are questions about diversity of the IETF leadership. I don’t see how we can continue going forward without looking into some problems we have today.
Dean
On 24 Mar 2025, at 13:42, Joel Halpern wrote:
I am not sure of the purpose of this list. I also think that it misrepresents the evolution.
On the one hand, the number of working groups per AD has not changed as much as you think (when I was Routing AD, I was the only routing AD. There are now 3, And there were plenty of WGs then.)
And while the tooling has improved dramatically to help the ADs, I don't see that as changing the job.
I could continue.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/24/2025 8:11 AM, ivandean@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello,
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.
2. Administrative and Organizational Responsibilities
Early Days: Area Directors previously focused primarily on technical oversight of their working groups.Now: ADs are expected to spend significant time on administrative functions, governance, conflict resolution, community management, diversity and inclusion efforts, and procedural fairness.
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.
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.
5. Increasing Workload and Demand for Professionalization
Early Days: AD roles could often be filled by volunteers without formal organizational support.Now: Due to increasing demands, many ADs require explicit employer support, often negotiating dedicated work time to effectively fulfill their responsibilities. This shift reflects increased professionalization in the role.
6. Adoption of Tools and Automation
Early Days: Coordination relied heavily on email, face-to-face meetings, and manual document handling.Now: Adoption of tools for issue tracking, collaboration, automated workflows, and decision management (e.g., Datatracker, GitHub) has changed ADs’ workflows significantly, making processes more structured and efficient.
8. Community Expectations and Social Dynamics
Early Days: The community was relatively homogeneous, smaller, and less global, resulting in fewer cultural or linguistic challenges.Now: The community is larger, global, diverse, and socially dynamic. ADs have expanded responsibilities to ensure equitable participation, inclusivity, and conflict resolution across diverse cultural backgrounds.
Dean
