Re: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-hardie-outline-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Hi,

My comments... some repeating what I had to say about the earlier draft.

1. I think Area Boards are an excellent idea. But I am very unsure whether we should 
still have Directorates when the Area Boards are in place. I would encourage ADs
to put ad hoc advisory committees in place if a topic isn't suitable for the Area
Board, but having standing Directorates as well seems like too much bureaucracy to
me.

2. I still think you are over-specifying the types of groups. I don't think we need
these rigid categories. What we need perhaps is a set of charter templates, matching
the types of group you have in mind - but let's keep the necessary flexibility.

3. I don't understand the "IESG teams" concept. Does this refer to strict sub-teams
of the IESG? If so, I don't see any delegation of workload (today, anyone who votes
no-ob is essentially equivalent to someone not in the team). Are the teams the ADs
concerned plus some external people? This isn't clear in the text, but it's the only
way I can see that gets work off the IESG plate.

4. Linked to this: I think we need a lot more debate about the reviewers. A vital part
of the SIRs proposal (which has certainly not been tried yet) is for reviewers to stay
with a document right from its birth up to the moment before the IESG decision. The draft
talks about early review but doesn't talk about final review. This is linked to the
previous point - to unload the IESG, a large part of the final review has to be done
oustside the IESG. I think we need to think again about both the SIRs proposal (which
has its problems) and the CREW proposal (which has its problems) and come up with
a coherent answer. I doubt if this can be reduced to just a single section of a more
general document.

Regards
   Brian