There is an assumption that the responsible AD is sufficiently skilled at the technology he is managing to be able to perform competent reviews, and to properly evaluate reviews others provide. The AD is also expected to be able to engage directly in discussions of the issues that the AD raises.
If the AD can't do those things, the area suffers and output quality suffers until an AD who can is appointed.
That is the premise of our structure.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/20/2023 2:16 PM, Robert Raszuk
wrote:
In regards to AD's reviews is there some expectation that AD is a subject matter expert in the Area(s) he or she is controlling/overlooking ?
And what happens if that assumption is not correct ?
Thx,R.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 1:04 PM Samir Srivastava <srivastava_samir@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the area where delay is unexpectedly more, there we should increase no of AD's. AD's should give quality time in reviews.
With Best RegardsSamir Srivastava
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: AD review delaysThe maximum unexpected delay MUST be 90 days ( or the period between IETF f2f meetings after that request) before the next IETF meeting from the request.
AB
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 6:55 PM Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let’s put some numbers on this (units of days)
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
I am inclined to suggest that up to 16 is excellent, 32 is perfectly fine and 64 is just about OK. Would others agree? What alternative metrics would you propose.
- Stewart
> On 19 Jun 2023, at 16:52, tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 19/06/2023 16:13, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> Stephen has provided a good summary. And the last paragraph of his reply is the recommended action.
>>
>> I usually try to do my AD reviews by copying the WG in all my email exchanges with the authors. But I guess other ADs may not put the WG in copy, i.e., what appears on the surface as 'no move' could actually be moving ;-)
>>
>> And to state the obvious, if a revised I-D is required (or under discussion) and if the revised I-D takes a long time to be submitted, then the I-D will stay longer in the 'AD review' state.
>
> Very much so. I was assuming that the authors responded promptly, within 24 hours plus timezones. I was also assuming that the Shepherd had done their job, that the I-D has passed all the checks that the tools perform and that the AD review was considered finished when I see the announcement on Last Call list.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>>
>> I hope this shed some lights on the process.
>>
>> -éric
>>
>> On 19/06/2023, 17:00, "ietf on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19/06/2023 12:16, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>> I am wondering what the consensus of the members of the IETF is on a
>>> reasonable time for an AD to take to move a document from publication
>>> requested to the next stage in the publication process?
>>
>>
>> I think the answer is "it depends." When I was on the IESG
>> it probably mostly depended on the length/complexity of a
>> document and what else was going on at the time, so not sure
>> it's possible to calculate to an expected duration for AD
>> review. I guess historical data might produce a bell curve
>> but not sure that data's easily assembled without a lot of
>> datatracker foo. (In case people don't know, a lot of the
>> current details for this are fairly transparent. [1])
>>
>>
>> I'd hope that someone unhappy with an AD's progress doing AD
>> evaluation would let the rest of the IESG know about that as
>> they're best placed to either pressure a slow AD or to offer
>> help to an overloaded AD.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ad>
>>
>>
>>
