[ Top posting - meta comment ] Every now and then I get a bee in my bonnet and decide to carefully review each and every draft in LC. I hate to break it to y'all, but many drafts really poorly written, and, even if you have very broad interests, many of them are going to be really boring to you… While not all ADs read all drafts, most read a large fraction of them (and read them carefully and thoughtfully enough to catch a number of large issues (and nits) *that were not caught in LC*) -- I think that they deserve recognition for performing a valuable and un-fun function... Climbing off soapbox, W On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary: > > Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see > numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses. > > Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams > these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert > the ADs if a draft really needs careful review. The workload is > more reasonable than it used to be. > > Thirdly, when I was in the IESG, I was surprised quite often by > *glaring* errors that had not been picked up before. Somebody has > to be responsible for catching these, and today it's the IESG. > > Fourthly, because of the exact same discussion that Glen raised in > plenary, the IESG defined and published its criteria for DISCUSS > several years ago. Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes > and those need to be pointed out when they happen. > > I hear the IESG members responding exactly right to this question. > > -- > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf