Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 08 November 2019 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4F41200CC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:39:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5RREkKeiEbjD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A7412004A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6073897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:36:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880C5913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:39:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
In-Reply-To: <9eab2c4e-455e-c3cb-cdf7-9c3467ada06c@gmail.com>
References: <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com> <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost> <57465486-71b1-a87a-fa8c-bad7157f9025@gmail.com> <3caeb4cf-b92b-99fd-77df-7b1aef3e2979@network-heretics.com> <20191107194408.GF12148@localhost> <9eab2c4e-455e-c3cb-cdf7-9c3467ada06c@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:39:48 -0500
Message-ID: <27509.1573177188@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3kMHKBO1mcJZXGQPBXsTe5Uqt9o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 01:39:52 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
    > One more comment and then an alternative thought experiment:
    > On 08-Nov-19 08:44, Nico Williams wrote:
    > ....
    > Anyway: my new experiment would be one that the IESG could decide to
    > start tomorrow. It's simply that the IESG would only ever issue one form
    > of DISCUSS ballot, which would look like this:

    > Pat Areadirector has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-somewg-somedraft-99: Discuss
    > ....
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    > There are still open issues from the following reviews:
    > <links to reviews>

okay, interesting idea.

    > In other words, the IESG simply busy-waits until all review issues
    > have been resolved, rather than finding and fixing the issues
    > personally.

Let's be clear: that means that reviewers are expected to engage with authors
to get the issues resolved.  This might surprise some reviewers.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-