>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> I wasn't advocating for more ADs, but for more 'virtual' ADs,
>>> i.e., to move the work of reviewing out of the ADs, and let
>>> the ADs distrbute the reviews and collect and interpret the
>>> results.
>> I would agree on one point. Document reviewers seem to me
>> would help. Most of the initial feedback (at least for my '1'
>> case) was editorial and not technical. The technical feedback
>> came later.
Keith> I can imagine that virtual ADs might be very useful for
Keith> reviewing early WG drafts (long before the WG thinks it is
Keith> done), identifying potentially contentious issues and
Keith> needed cross-area review, giving feedback to the authoring
Keith> WGs about those, and informing the real ADs about the state
Keith> of the document.
Yes! And anyone who wants to do so can feel free to provide comments
as early in the process as they like.
It may well be that having organized virtual ADs would be useful.
Meanwhile, if you want to know what you can do about quality and load
of the IESG, the answer is simple.
Review stuff.
One technique I've found to be somewhat rewarding from before I was on
the IESG is to pick a technology you are interested in. Find
documents--especially documents from areas of the IETF not that
familiar with that technology--that use the technology. Read those
documents and provide review comments. Try to close with the WGs and
get resolution to your comments.
If you fail and believe that your issues still exist let the
appropriate ADs know.
It doesn't take any special designation to give you the power to
review documents. Ultimately reviewers are those who write reviews.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf