On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:51 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If we want the IESG job to be more reasonably sized, we have to take
> work away from the ADs. As far as I can see, that means taking away
> their duty of acting as final reviewers. I don't want to name names
> because I don't think the ADs are to be blamed individually, but some
> of them spend *enormous* effort on detailed reviews.
+1
I think that there is a lack of trust by ADs of the various directorates.
To be fair, output quality even within a particular directorate is highly variable. If we were to go down this path, the directorates would need to step up. That means:
* Better, more comprehensive area-specific reviews
* Completed on time
* Employing consistent standards, objectives, and issue coverage
* Possibly with explicit training and written resources guiding reviews
* Escalation of specific issues to the AD or to the wider directorate
* Most importantly, a feedback loop: reviews subjected to metrics and success criteria evaluated on an on-going basis
Redundancy (multiple reviewers) and/or alignment with subject matter expertise (rather than round-robin assignment) would probably help immensely.
Kyle
