On 21/10/2013 03:18, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> Because working together with others on final document reviews
> and providing a final verification that all necessary bits are
> in place shouldn't require nearly the job-learning time that the
> IESG/AD role does, one could consider asking members of that
> review body to serve only a year or maybe six months, and
> possibly relax the meeting attendance requirements,
I think we could totally remove attendance requirements. There
are cases where understanding a document requires background knowledge,
but if the document doesn't contain pointers to that knowledge, it's
a defect in the document, not in the reviewer. In fact, we can argue
that since the acid test for a document is whether a reader who has
zero IETF experience can understand it without ambiguity, at least
one reviewer should have limited background knowledge.
I don't think a time limit is the critical issue - it's how many
documents a given reviewer has to review per year, or to be more
precise, how many pages. Clearly the burden in pages/year on a
conscientious AD at the moment is silly.
> either of
> which should vastly increase the pool of plausible volunteers,
> including some people we would very much like to have in those
> jobs but who can't take on the IESG workload or long-term
> commitment.
>
> For an earlier and somewhat different take on this issue and a
> variation on a proposal, see the long-expired
> draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.
The high-order bit is whether we can separate the functions of
(a) steering the work of the IETF and (b) applying final quality
control to the documents. At the moment, these two jobs are bound
up with each other in the IESG.
Brian