Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload-00.txt

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

There's a great risk in perpetuating the status quo by saying, "When I was
on the IESG..." So, yes, having the discussion "outside the ivory tower" is
important.
Of course, the current IESG can tell us what process they follow and what
they hope will be the interaction with the community. And they can also
explain what they feel to be the conflicting pressures on their time.
I think the community can suggest ways of operating that might improve
things, but that is probably verging on frustrating for the IESG who know
what work methods work for them.

But the big points have to be:
- How does the community receive communications from the IESG?
- What tasks are the IESG prioritising, and what is the impact on the
community?
- What elements of the work flow appear, to the community, to cause
friction?

Mark's draft seems, to me, to be a good starting point for allowing the
community to coherently tell the IESG what it thinks. If Rich produces
another draft capturing other ideas and views, all to the good. Although
(perhaps) the IESG will get a clearer message if we are able to merge our
thoughts into a single document.

To the direct point about the communications during IESG evaluation...
1. If Directorate reviews completed during IETF last call, then the ADs
would not need to "support" the reviews and make them part of their
Discusses. The reviews would simply be treated as part of IETF last call and
handled accordingly. (The boilerplate on the review might usefully change
the tone from "this is a review for the FOO AD" to "the FOO AD has asked me
to do this review as part of IETF last call.")
2. The "game of telephone" really does take place. I don't think it shows
any malice or incompetence, but it might be a symptom of overwork. It is
easily cured by all Comments and Discusses automatically going to the WG
mailing list so that all follow-up communications also go there. The drafts
are a product of the WG (not just the front-page authors), and while the
authors hold the pen and have an interest in negotiating progress for the
document, the WG has a right to know what is going on and why their work is
being changed.

To the much debated point that, "the ADs are not overloaded, just a bit
behind"...
I continue to think that a draft that goes to an AD as "publication
requested" needs to complete AD review within a month. Of course there are
blips, but I think that the blips are what take the time up to a month from
a shorter time.
Of course the "sponsoring AD" feels a responsibility to approve the content
of the document, and maybe this is one of their higher priorities. If so,
they need to treat it as a priority by saying to themselves, "This draft is
going for IETF last call in 2 weeks' time, and if I have not reviewed it by
then, I will be letting myself down." [*]
I would note that the enforced agenda of IESG telechats *does* cause ADs to
review documents.

So, and back to Mark's draft, if the ADs don't have enough resource to meet
the desires/expectations of the community, they must be bold and say so. The
community cannot help or manage the IESG if the IESG is not clear and open
about the problems. The IESG does not need to feel that it must fix the
problems (although it is welcome to do so) - this is a problem for the
community, and the community must tell the IESG what it wants to see happen.

Cheers,
Adrian

[*] Previously, when I have raised concerns about documents waiting for AD
review for more than 200 days, individual ADs have asked, "Do you mean me?"
By all means go ahead and feel guilty! But I am not targeting any one AD:
this is an IESG problem that the community must help the IESG solve.


-----Original Message-----
From: Gendispatch <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Martin Thomson
Sent: 31 March 2023 00:21
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload-00.txt

It seems to me like Mark is challenging that mode of operation also.  That
is, he is suggesting that when that delegation occurs, it is more complete
than it is today.

I do somewhat like the idea that maybe the discussion could be conducted
outside of the ivory tower somewhat more than it is today.  As a document
author, I often find myself frustrated by the game of telephone that occurs
during IESG review.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023, at 20:39, Joel Halpern wrote:
> There are some aspects of the AD review that I assume, and would like 
> to see referenced.
>
> One aspect is that when an AD has (or accepts from a reviewer) a 
> concern, the AD needs to do enough work themselves to be able to engage 
> effectively in discussion of that concern with fellow ADs and then (if 
> there is still a concern) with the document shepherd / editors / WG.
>
> The other aspect is somewhat more nuanced and subtle.  If ADs from 
> other areas see an issue in the area for which an AD is responsible, 
> one of the ADs for that area ought, I think, be prepared to engage in 
> enough review to determine whether they share or disagree with the 
> concern.  Maybe part of this could be delegated, but it seems that it 
> is the AD who needs to engage in the discussion.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
> On 3/30/2023 4:41 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> FYI -- based on discussions this week, food for thought / bike shedding /
discussion. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> *From: *[e-mail]
>>> *Subject: **New Version Notification for
draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload-00.txt*
>>> *Date: *30 March 2023 at 5:41:03 pm GMT+9
>>> *To: *"Mark Nottingham" <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload-00.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
>>> IETF repository.
>>> 
>>> Name: draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload
>>> Revision: 00
>>> Title: IESG Document Review Expectations: Impact on AD Workload
>>> Document date: 2023-03-30
>>> Group: Individual Submission
>>> Pages: 7
>>> URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload-00.txt
>>> Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload/
>>> Html:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload-00.htm
l
>>> Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-iesg-review-workload
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Abstract:
>>>   Arguably, IETF Area Directors are overloaded with document review
>>>   duties.  This document surveys the relevant background, discusses the
>>>   implications, and makes a proposal for improvements.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch

-- 
Gendispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch