Re: the ancient reorganisation question, was IETF-91 Question etc

[Thomas Clausen <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Abdussalam,

On Aug 15, 2014, at 18:05, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<SNIP?

"improving the quality, speed, and
experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area. "

The routing area should think about not  only work done but also the work coming into each WG (i.e adopted work by WG). I know one WG in this area having many work adopted while the WG size is small so reviews/analysis are with low quality.

Rather interesting statement to make.

Remember: the IETF is made up from its participants — saying “reviews/analysis of better quality” is needed ain’t going to change much … however producing “reviews/analysis of better quality” might.

Thus, if you believe that in a given WG "reviews/analysis are with low quality", then it would seem incumbent on you to simply offer up “reviews/analysis of better quality” to that WG, would it not? 

Cheers,

Thomas