Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Fri, 29 November 2019 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
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 39769120828 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:30:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CEN_udItxbo7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x234.google.com (mail-oi1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3020B1208AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x234.google.com with SMTP id o12so26760559oic.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:30:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=msz+YCPs9l6eBYIFDW/S4oaPKJd78KPIFdTG4KAX7PM=; b=q0xo7ep45a1TKbm9jkSHSFt4ccOZXvS4YtvyoJpj/WVRaKxbYulLAyzgEpr0V4ogAY WZfR8Cl0LzpgU3vNTshNhSCIy4cfQNAQcEYcSlDaahREUqJma/29u25v//U0mtFikBYb eNGAdm+1V9TZiq/Z6Bn1ylkFBpZ/FUTYNDnI3Ti+p3NyZ33Om5i6lQSu9t2BlYN3EP4d MIrNrxTikQa7p8I4UUBcTiAL7X8JFrnMQcfyfRWTkl5aYEbFw0XrK09W6ou6K0SJQqL0 GnXnFansArv2meqB+MecSHiyXCjW3TGbtC2ArdEeUF/tdcKxqmD0YXG/UamGNRcdi7/q NYrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=msz+YCPs9l6eBYIFDW/S4oaPKJd78KPIFdTG4KAX7PM=; b=XKTo2jANjpKrCzqx11r0h8lMB795RriUn4FGCd8c6ScXDRLgZORR9mAqLAdPiHroqV ERy0snVceJdEilPMr7n/Ylv75GlXxkQyD4F6vmBMPm+bLOxdPAXx7cOvD3ytnhIiM6F/ sBzzsaDMP8Fa9eev4zIZ392oUFJTeWg2KrWoDD7cOXPYZFkPmcirlJrt+74AY3gyWLq/ JPteW8441tD2CCLaEiLx2wfou8R5tC/1+tV9Bsg58dIalLnCuFUiQZ2EoxwV0OmIycOs ao8Cwub8GO3HQq1uSe4mGqa7nT49VkqiKVcvpncG62cPa7Usb4NpE60ranA79u8DU1gV fHxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUMT8TnHb6XKD5LQWReEnaawLBMELtDyf5FYJ5qCMRIuN2GCN8l 3nh32UNrrITrT2htOEjWFY6tX7RkAilbZPttTRI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwL8yREplHhp7OIlDwsRKYfw4hKcceSnLSfCMDDNc78ztesSCvMZTUc1/ulyrZkKVNm89+WPTiz8E23jvcmH5g=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4011:: with SMTP id x17mr1207983oie.52.1575052237397; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:30:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:30:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89At83GGr8pUb8QfEvaeXN8qQ=XmjtJt5QeDcYm96fPUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
To: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001ce1c60598806d51"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5kYWrK7UZ-Cn6CLcgR34JJPXF70>
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, 29 Nov 2019 18:30:40 -0000

Hi Alex and Ralph,

The quality will never increase if authors are not answering positively to
discussions in their WG, however, I always blame first WG-authors and
second WG chair and then thirdly the AD, for low quality of
discussions/drafts/works.

> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>; <ietf-bounces@ietf.org&gt>;; On Behalf
Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: 06 November 2019 11:03
> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com&gt>;;
> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca&gt>;;;
ietf <ietf@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org&gt>;;
> Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com&gt>;;
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On 05/11/2019 21:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>;
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com&gt>;; wrote:
> >>> If we want the IESG job to be more reasonably sized, we have to take
> >>> work away from the ADs.

I agree

>>>>As far as I can see, that means taking away
> >>> their duty of acting as final reviewers. I don't want to name names
> >>> because I don't think the ADs are to be blamed individually, but
> >>> some of them spend *enormous* effort on detailed reviews.


The WG Chair/manager is blamed, they need to encourage discussions/works
and deep investigation before submitting drafts to AD. The WG Chair should
push WG and authors for best reviews and cooperation.


> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I think that there is a lack of trust by ADs of the various
> directorates.
> >
> > Other ADs have commented on this, but I think I need to repeat what
> > they said and expand on it.
> >
> > Results are vary varied. Some are quite good (e.g. Gen-Art) and others
> > really depend on reviewer. ADs responsible for Directorates are faces
> > with the choice of firing half of their Directorates (which has some
> > rather unfortunate consequences) and/or raise the bar on who should be
> > allowed to join. We already struggle to recruit people at all levels
> > of our organization.

It is easy to know when the draft is ready, YOU just check if there was
many discussions on the WG list, if non then send it back to WG to work.

> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Alexey
>
> We shouldn't be depending on last-minute quality checks to maintain the
> quality of our output.

Agree

>Working groups should be producing documents that
> are ready to publish, and develop trust that their documents are high
> quality.

Agree, the authors need to answer all questions on the list as if all
participants are ADs. WG authors reply differently with AD than with WG
participant, this needs to change.

AB