On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:24 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > The past few generic IESG job descriptions (as sent to Nomcom) have had > some interesting text in this front (quoting from > https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2019/expertise/#pos-iesg-members): > > % An AD should be able to personally review every Internet-Draft that they > % sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs to be satisfied that > % adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review these > % documents as well. > > That does, of course, leave the question open of what constitutes "adequate > review", but it seems highly likely that the intent is to allow > directorates to satisfy it. I find the quality of directorate reviews to be highly variable. Sometimes they are quite deep and perceptive. Sometimes I have thought a draft needs a review by the X Directorate because of X issues in it and the resulting review has only a few comments on things found by the nits checker -- and I mean not just that it has no substantive comments on X issues, the review doesn't doesn't mention X at all, except possibly is boilerplate at the beginning of the review, not even to say that the reviewer didn't find any X issues in the draft :-( Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > -Ben
