Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 12/26/2015 03:36 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
>
>     But mostly I think that WGs need to have their work subject to
>     formal external review much earlier in the process than Last Call,
>     particularly when the WG's work has the potential to impact other
>     WGs or other areas.
>
>
> Easiest way for cross reviews are in meetings

I disagree.   Though some amount of cross-area review does happen at 
meetings (and if it weren't for meetings, there would be considerably 
less), there are several problems with relying on meetings for 
cross-area review.  The first is that the meetings tend to be scheduled 
in area tracks without much regard for the potential for one WG's output 
to cause problems in a different area.   The second is that the way we 
conduct meetings is itself hostile to cross-area review.   Though people 
from other areas do bring up concerns at meetings, there is a strong 
tendency to view those people as "outsiders" who "haven't done their 
homework" (perhaps because they don't use the same technical terms as 
the WG participants, and/or they just learned of the problem the group 
was causing a few minutes before and haven't had the time to read the 
group's dozen internet-drafts).   And those outsiders are also viewed as 
taking up too much precious meeting time which could otherwise be 
devoted to more PowerPoint presentations.

(Which is a related problem - IETF working groups are producing too many 
documents for the number of participants, resulting in many documents of 
low quality and/or low relevance which IESG mostly feels obligated to 
publish.   And IETF treats that as a sign of success).

Keith