On 11/7/19 11:42 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I suspect that for a lot of documents, broad cross area review beyond what Brian proposes is not necessary. Not for all, but many things that working groups produce are very incremental. We could have two tracks, one as Brian proposes, and another where the AD thinks more review is needed.
Sure, I agree that broad cross area review isn't necessary for every document. Though I don't think the important factor is whether the work is "incremental", but rather, whether it affects interests beyond the narrow scope of the WG itself. But even with the current process, I also don't think that an AD needs to read every document if it doesn't touch on his or her area. So I don't think we need to change the process just to allow documents that don't need broad review to not be subjected to it. I just assume that that fewer ADs will concern themselves with such documents, and for the documents that have less potential to wreak havoc, ADs will be more willing to trust reviews from directorate members and others in the community. Voting "no objection" is pretty easy, after all, and ADs are busy enough that there's plenty of incentive to avoid unnecessary work.
I suspect this would significantly reduce the load on the IESG and would not reduce quality.
I don't think it would reduce the load by much, since I assume the workload is already reduced for these documents. And it should never be up to "the AD" (as in singular) to decide how broad review should be. That judgment needs to be made by several people from different areas, even if the AD, or ADs for the area of the document in question, don't see the potential adverse impact.
Keith
