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

Apparently, you and I read the draft somewhat differently.  I am sure 
Mark can say what he means :-)

Under the assumption that I understood it, the draft seems to suggest a 
direction that may help, and is unlikely to work.

Having said that, clarity on the question of who is responsible for 
holding the discuss and the discussion is quite important in my view.  
If the AD does not help the discussion then we are making a far more 
fundamental change to the IESG than I read the draft as asking for.

Yours,

Joel

On 3/30/2023 7:21 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 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: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>>> *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" <mnot@mnot.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.html
>>>> 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
>> Gendispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch