I did like having the context between drafts and across areas. Area reviews were very helpful to clear up issues and also to flag which documents may require more attention.
As a counter example, Stephen Farrell kept up the entire security area on his own while I was on maternity leave, but I think he';s an exception. Every mailing list was followed and all but recent documents were in process. I did try to have WGs clear their queues in advance as much as possible.
I may have been able to get to 50% with a few changes, but the balance between ADs is a consideration for the NomCom. Benoit & Joel had varying amounts of time to dedicate and they made it work between them.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly
- Stewart
On 25/07/2018 04:53, 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.
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
Best regards,
Kathleen
