There is also a problem with directorate reviews of highly variable quality. I don't want to name any names but I have seen reviews from the X directorate that said absolutely nothing about the X aspects of the reviewed draft and merely commented on a couple of things the automated nits checker complained about. Such "reviews" are virtually a no-op. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
