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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 16 November 2019 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 428341200D5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:40:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 4sYKLRTzSMiD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:40:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27754120033 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:40:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:2472:ebff:feda:c977]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05C491F451; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 06:40:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 2F919BF7; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:40:17 +0800 (CST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: "ietf\@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
In-reply-to: <b3ee4a4e-feb0-9fda-99ac-a6492374f0e3@gmx.de>
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <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> <8b387d57-f056-7de3-9851-a431b17b67b4@network-heretics.com> <c97440e1-c6bb-8219-2970-357d9c45beb2@gmail.com> <fa406d85-babb-9821-047f-ad7efbdd23f5@network-heretics.com> <11796.1573157656@localhost> <959ECDD1-5DFF-4393-94B8-6425983866D3@akamai.com> <19231.1573175109@localhost> <b3ee4a4e-feb0-9fda-99ac-a6492374f0e3@gmx.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> message dated "Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:54:37 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:40:17 +0800
Message-ID: <31386.1573886417@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7pXXUNnxkD2vMAcaVNIV3FC2PJw>
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: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 06:40:24 -0000

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
    >> Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote: >> My impression from the regular
    >> plenary reports on attendance my impression is > that the number of
    >> people involved in the IETF is declining, yet the number > of RFCs
    >> being processed is going up.
    >>
    >> > Attendance is perhaps declining, but I don't recall any discussion
    >> of > WG email traffic, for example.
    >>
    >> So the number we need to know is what is the trend for RFCs being
    >> processed by a set of authors who are exclusively remote.  ...

    > Why exclusively?

There is a belief that documents which have authors that can travel to
meetings progress more easily than those that don't.
A document that has at least one author "shopping" the document around the
physical meeting could have five remote authors contributing.

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