> On Dec 20, 2015, at 12:56 PM 12/20/15, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/18/2015 4:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> I am prepared to believe that we are in fact doing it more >> systematically. If so, however, the argument you make for the >> kismet-review effect of full IETF meetings is actually weaker, since >> the system could be set up to encourage things via lists and so on. > > > Well... That depends on how reviews are done and how the kismet-contacts affect that. > > Massive numbers and types of problems get missed by the reviews that are currently done. Can you say more here? How do you know these problems are being missed? When you write "missed by the reviews that are currently done", do you mean missed altogether or missed by, say, the WG review and picked up in IESG review? Given the number of problems I see in some documents during Int-Dir or Gen-ART, I'm sure there are more problems that I'm not picking up. It's a reasonable inference that there are problems not caught by any of our reviews. I'm curious about specifics... - Ralph > That's not because people don't care or are insufficiently knowledgeable. I'm not sure what could reliably done to reliably improve the catching of serious problems, but currently we are reliably missing lots of stuff, lots of times. > > Kismet contacts increase the range of brains and eyes looking at stuff. In statistical terms, that makes it more likely that someone will catch one or another significant issue. Who and when and what aren't predictable, but the overall odds get better. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail