On 26/07/2018 09:56, Alia Atlas wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:56 PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 26/07/2018 03:26, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Of course, if an AD decided to delegate authority to a review team, >> that would require that the AD also trusted the review team to >> do its job correctly. At the moment, review teams are *not* formally >> on the hook, but if they were to hold real power, they would need >> to be explicitly responsible to the community. >> >> As John Klensin implied, it's really up to the IESG. If the IESG wants >> to limit its workload, that means giving up some of its power. Something >> for the NomCom to consider when evaluating candidates. >> > > Why do you believe that the IESG hasn't limited its workload? > Given that, I believe, the majority of ADs are not essentially full-time, > what changes do you all see as needed? IMHO, more delegation of authority by the *steering* group. > Much of this conversation feels like a discussion from 6-8 years ago. Yes, or longer. But every year we hear that NomCom is short of available candidates. If we were talking about a typical 25% job instead of 50%, there would definitely be more candidates. Regards Brian > > Regards, > Alia > > > >> Brian >> >>> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
