+1 Warren Doing cross-area reviews themselves vs. totally dedicating to a directorate, not only helps the AD learn, it also helps an AD determine the potential for collaborating more on work/sorting out drafts. For me, not only security (yes, routing's fav topic) but also transport have been learning experiences. We just added a transport advisor for detnet which is proving extremely valuable. Directorate reviews are very helpful, but they are "one document at a time", and as not everyone on the directorate is reading every mail, may not be aware of a previous identified issue or resolution. Even reviews within an area (as we do in routing) may miss cross-working group inconsistencies with multiple documents. For routing, we went to 3 ADs to help spread the work when it became too much for 2 ADs. Adding ADs or splitting Areas may help the workload, though I know from history, it's not necessarily the right answer for all. Quick scan of Adrian's mail - in routing, we talked about allocating telechat documents among the 3 of us, but decided we all want to "have a look". Not because we don't "trust" the other. But as Warren says, there may be something, which probably doesn't have anything to do with routing, which we think can help improve the document or personally learn about. But it doesn't necessarily mean a line-by-line review. So yes, we are personally responsible for how much time we are committing. As others are saying, one probably does need to allocate more than 50%. Especially if want to do more than process documents after publication is requested. The difficulty with defining "one" number, as others are saying, is the unpredictability - your own working groups, telechat reviews, and IESG-discussion topics. Sure, you don't need to read every mail, but as Warren says, you don't want to miss out on the "fun" part of the role. +1 to Adrian's list. If there's a problem to find someone able to commit the time, then the area, IESG, and NomCom should have the discussion on what to do for that specific AD role for that specific cycle. Maybe shake up the pool and consider a volunteer from one of the other areas. Deborah -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Warren Kumari Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:50 AM To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: IETF Discuss <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: AD Time On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:30 AM Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > The role also expands to fill all *available* time -- there are weeks where all I've done is IESG work, but other weeks (like when I'm at e.g RIPE and have other things to do) I've managed to get by with just an hour or two. There has been much discussion in this thread about the time required (as though it is a huge imposition) but very little said about the rewards --- apart from the satisfaction of doing something useful for the community[0], you also get to work with smart people, and also are "forced" to read documents outside your normal / interest zone. This last one has been really fascinating - before becoming an AD I'd often stumble across some draft about something like how HIP traverses NAT and think "Huh, weird. I don't know how that works, I'll read this draft sometime....", and then forget about it completely / go read Slashdot instead. Now that I'm expected to read these documents I'm discovering all sorts of really interesting subjects and details that I've never known about... Many (most?!) ADs serve more than one term - if they all felt overloaded all the time they wouldn't reapply... W [0]: or, at least the feeling that you are doing something useful for the community :-) > 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 -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
