Spencer: Thanks for the pointer. It did answer my question to the
list if we have any form of accumulated process wisdom. The bad
news seems to be "Yes, we have (RFC3774), but we also ignore it".
Maybe the most simple action item for ADs from this thread would really
be to ask their directorate members to provide reviews that answer
to a set of questions derived from e.g.: the shepherd review list (removing
those that don't apply) but adding those points that Ted mentioned.
As an attempt to give more breathing room to ADs instead of reviewing
everything themselves. And for those who do already heavily lean on the
directorate as a help to improve the quality of the reviews (instead of the
also mentioned common rfc-editor like spell checking review we unfortunately
see too much.).
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:52:26AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Yeah, I don't remember it either, although I vaguely remember someone
> suggesting that I read it during the period after I started ADing, when it
> was one of many documents to read. Sigh. It seems like the fact that
> ADs don't read this when they start is symptomatic of some of the problems
> it describes???those who are unaware of history are doomed to repeat it,
> etc. :]
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:37:39AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > > This is a great document, Spencer. I don't remember it being on the
> > > reading list for ADs when I joined the IESG. Is it now?
> >
> > I don't remmber reading RFC 3774 during my onboarding. This could be a
> > result of all the stuff I've read since pushing it out of my memory, me not
> > getting to that part of the onboarding checklist, it not being present on
> > the onboarding checklist, or something else...
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> > > spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Melinda,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:43 AM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I'm not okay with is charging down this path, including
> > > >> investigations, etc., when there's a universe of other ways to
> > > >> address the problem that aren't being discussed. I'm not sure
> > > >> I've even seen a clear statement of "the problem."
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I've actually been pointing people to https://tools.ietf.org/
> > > > html/rfc3774#section-2 in discussions recently, and
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3774#section-2.6.2 seems especially
> > > > relevant to this thread.
> > > >
> > > > If one needed a description of "the problem", that would be a useful
> > place
> > > > to start. I'd assert that we have made changes in response to some of
> > the
> > > > problems included in that document ("Three Stage Standards Hierarchy
> > not
> > > > properly Utilized" is now a two-stage standards hierarchy, for better
> > or
> > > > worse), but a lot of the problems identified fifteen years ago sound
> > really
> > > > familiar to me now.
> > > >
> > > > (Full disclosure - Melinda was one of the co-chairs of the working
> > group
> > > > that produced this document, and I was ACKed in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/
> > > > html/rfc3774#section-4)
> > > >
> > > > Spencer
> > > >
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
