|
Hi Spencer, I would suggest balloting by Area as a baseline, with additional ADs added as appropriate when a draft is of particular relevance or interest to an Area or a specific
AD, perhaps to one of the At-Large ADs proposed in the other thread (who might be able to free up Jari from having to deal with every draft). The 15-box ballot display is part of our tooling and culture that sets expectations that each AD will pay some attention to every draft. The results of moving to a structure
and tooling in which every Area (instead of each AD) is expected to pay some attention to every draft could vary by draft and Area, e.g., - If one Routing AD says “no routing concerns here,” that could well suffice for the entire area. - At the other end of the spectrum, perhaps both Security ADs should look at most drafts, because there’s always a Security Considerations section. - For really important drafts, it may make sense for every AD to participate in the ballot.
Creating a culture and expectations where a significant fraction of ADs are not expected to (but are always welcome to) participate in the ballot of every draft ought
to help reduce AD workload. Thanks, From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx]
Hi, David, You mentioned "per-AD" at the Admin Plenary open mike last night, and I wanted to make sure I understood your point. I think you were pointing to the ballot display on https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/, where there is a box for each AD to ballot on each document, and suggesting
that maybe balloting for each area on each document might would work about as well, giving equivalent coverage while reducing the review load on each AD (except Jari, of course - there being only one GEN AD). Does that sound familiar? Thanks, Spencer |