Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 6/6/18 5:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> SECDIR, GENART, and ARTART reviewers seem to check the whole document.
> By contrast, I18N reviews would have a smaller scope (along the lines of
> what the SDPDIR does).

I'm not sure how good a comparison this is. Any document that doesn't 
mention SDP is clearly not a candidate for SDPDIR review. Any document 
that doesn't mention i18n, probably *does* need a check that such 
omission makes sense. In that way, I think the required task is more 
like SECDIR than SDPDIR.

Thanks for mentioning ARTART. Its process is useful as a third point on 
the continuum of rigor exhibited by directorates. ARTART only reviews 
those documents that are flagged as potentially having ART interactions, 
rather than the intended full coverage of SECDIR, OPSDIR, and GENART. It 
is probably more in line with what is appropriate for an 
internationalization directorate, both in function and size. It 
currently has 12 members, although we would ideally like a slightly 
larger pool.

> As a point of comparison, the W3C I18N WG [1] is
> quite busy but is very small: John Klensin and I and a few others help
> out, but most of the work is done by two people.

Taken together with the assumption that any IETF directorate would 
probably involve substantial overlap with that group of people, I'm now 
concerned about scaling. I couldn't quickly find statistics on how many 
documents the W3C finalizes in any given year, but my impression is that 
it's somewhat smaller than the IETF's output. Given that your 
description uses the words "quite busy," do you think that same group of 
individuals could double or triple their i18n review load without losing 
efficacy or burning out?

/a