On 25/07/2018 04:21, Brian E Carpenter 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
I agree with Brian, if we really cannot get find "classic" ADs, we need
to recognise this with a
formal change in the system.
That said, we need ADs that have enough context that they can have a
detailed conversation
on the salient points of drafts within the context of the whole of the
IETF space. I always
found that doing the reviews was the most effective way of acquiring
that continually evolving
context.
- Stewart
