The thing is, AD is a job. Do we want the job to be done well, or not? If we want it to be done well, why is it a volunteer position?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arguments about not being able to find enough good AD candidates (are you prepared with your nominations?) who can spend time basically amount to not having a day job convinced of the value. Explaining the businesses value of the IETF & the role is needed - not assuming that investments aren't possible.Regards,AliaOn Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:58 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:No, what I'm getting at is that I think that's the wrong knob to turn.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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>>
>>
>
