On 06/11/2019 11:42, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.
This could serve two purposes:
- some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
- encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting.
I think acknowledging people is generally a good idea. I would be in
favour of always acknowledging directorate reviews, shepherds and
possibly ADs in documents.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
Sent: 06 November 2019 11:03
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 05/11/2019 21:50, Michael Richardson 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.
Other ADs have commented on this, but I think I need to repeat what
they said and expand on it.
Results are vary varied. Some are quite good (e.g. Gen-Art) and others
really depend on reviewer. ADs responsible for Directorates are faces
with the choice of firing half of their Directorates (which has some
rather unfortunate consequences) and/or raise the bar on who should be
allowed to join. We already struggle to recruit people at all levels
of our organization.
Best Regards,
Alexey
We shouldn't be depending on last-minute quality checks to maintain the
quality of our output. Working groups should be producing documents that
are ready to publish, and develop trust that their documents are high
quality.
- Ralph
