On 25/07/2018 15:53, Ted Lemon wrote: > The problem with review teams is that if you don't read the documents and > don't know what they are about, you don't have the overview that allows for > synthesis. One of the advantages of having people who review "all" the > documents is that stuff occurs to those people because they see connections > that people who don't review "all" the documents don't get. I put "all" > in quotes because it's never really all, but even so, ADs definitely have a > bird's eye view that is not shared by anyone else. It's true. But do you have any other ideas how to *substantially* reduce the AD workload? Brian > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 25/07/2018 01:41, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> .... >>> I think that as AD my time was consumed because I made a point of >> reading, >>> or at least skimming, all drafts prior to publication looking for >> security >>> specific issues. >> >> So would things be better if we formalized the area review teams so >> that they perform this function directly and can officially register "No >> Objection" in the IESG ballot, with the AD only being involved when the >> suggested ballot is "Yes", "Discuss" or "Abstain"? >> >> (We've been talking about AD overload for >10 years, so maybe it's >> time to actually change something.) >> >> Brian >> >> >
