> > 1. A review structure that works for conferences doesn't necessarily > > work for IETF. > > And it doesn't necessarily not work either. It has not been generally > applied, though. Lots of things haven't been generally applied. For instance, we haven't tried evaluating IETF submissions by weight. > > Conferences and IETF have different goals. > > Correctness is a part of conferences too; consensus not as much, but ADs > applying their personal feedback is not consensus. ADs apply their personal feedback out of the need for closure; it's also not clear that an AD's personal feedback is worse than a conference reviewer's personal feedback. A conference reviewer might not get to veto a paper, but an AD's DISCUSS isn't a veto either. > > 2. IESG's scaling problems are a direct result of low-quality output > > from working groups, and we can't do much to address that problem > > by changing how IESG works. > > IESG's scaling problems are also a result of taking on too much personal > responsibility to provide individual feedback rather than to delegate. No, that is a symptom. The problem with ADs providing individual feedback is exacerbated by working groups reaching the point of exhaustion before they get significant external review and generally being unwilling to accept significant changes at that point. Delegating the reviews won't solve the exhaustion/denial problem, it will just add delay. > > 3. I don't think we can make IESG significantly larger, I don't think > > we can dispense with final document review and keep document quality > > up, and I don't think that additional reviewers can signficantly > > relieve IESG of the need to do final review. I do think that > > additional reviewers could be very valuable in giving WGs feedback from > > early drafts, keeping them on the right track, and keeping IESG > > informed about the status of the WGs. I also think that a document > > that has enjoyed such review and feedback throughout its life cycle > > will be much easier for IESG to review, and that (without any changes > > to IESG's organization or process) it will be harder for IESG to reject > > such documents without sound technical justification. > > All conjectures ;-) All informed by several years of experience, including 4 years on IESG. (which you will probably want to dismiss as mere bias :) > The issue isn't whether there's sound technical justification, but > whether things get held up until that's addressed, even with ongoing > review and feedback from other WGs. > > We either need to make the IESG larger (real or virtual by delegation) > or make their work smaller (by encouraging feedback to be directional - > as in 'take to WG X' - rather than technical review). Having WGs produce higher quality output will reduce IESG's workload and reduce the time spent in final review. By the time a document reaches IESG, the kind of feedback you recommend is often too late. > > But I > > think the primary benefit of additional reviewers is in early review > > rather than late review - I think we want the early review both to give > > timely feedback and correction to WGs and to give the ADs confidence > > that the WGs have stayed on track and done their homework, thus making > > the late reviews easier. > > I agree, except that I don't see what the purpose of the late reviews > is; IMO, an ADs time is better spent pointing out which WGs might > overlap or have issue with a document than in providing specific > technical criteria for correcting things (unless that WG and the doc > editor disagree). It's to make sure that the document adheres to 2026 criteria before publication. > > and one specific response to something you wrote: > > > >>We don't believe in kings, and IMO, the IESG have too much king-like > >>power in the current structure. > > > > Start giving IESG real rough consensus (rather than consensus by > > exclusion and/or exhaustion) and real running code (or even > > better, convincing analysis that the protocol will work well in the > > wild), and they won't feel the need to rule by edict. > > That isn't always sufficient. Sometimes they rule to appease > individuals, sometimes that individual is the AD. Either way, there's > more going on than just good protocol design. I am not saying that ADs will never misuse their power. That's what the appeals process is for. I'm saying that under the current situation the vast majority of AD "edicts" (as opposed to directed feedback) are the result of WGs reaching the point of exhaustion without producing good designs. Fix that problem and it becomes reasonable to expect fewer and less onerous AD "edicts" and to push back on those edicts more often. > I would prefer a bottom up organization that helped us create better, > more coordinated protocols than the top-down one that we have now. We already have a bottom-up organization. It's because the bottom is failing to do its job that the top has to play cop. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf