On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why not double the number of ADs in each area and instead of > every AD reviewing every draft, have 2 ADs from each area > review each draft? (Cut the AD hours in half somehow) I don't review every draft (you can see which ones I didn't review on the record because I don't state a position if I didn't review the draft). But there's a limit to how useful this is—e.g., Brian Haberman has a very different history and set of experiences in the IETF than I do, so it's not necessarily the case that we would see the same things in reading the same document (and, indeed, we usually don't). So I base my decision to review on more of a triage approach: I review the ones that I think are most important and most likely to be understandable to me first, and then branch out from there; if I have time to read them all, I do, but if I don't, I don't guilt trip about it. I will almost certainly miss something important at some point, but that would be true even if I reviewed every document. So the problem is that increasing the number of ADs per area might help, but I don't think it would be linear, so it's an expensive approach.