Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 27 December 2015 22:48 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3411A6FC2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:48:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 O-QrINQ0nRYs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 143901A6FBB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.31.98.241] (STARBUCK-CO.edge4.LosAngeles1.Level3.net [4.15.243.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBRMm5Qw003022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:48:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.c om> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net> <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com> <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net> <4AE6DC68FC9B8CA113CBCDFA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5678D728.2080404@dcrocker.net> <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net> <2508B3C2-8F5F-4417-8052-E73B6F34BED1@standardstrack.com> <567ACCEE.9030503@dcrocker.net> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0C2DE@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM> <567B56A9.4030302@dcrocker.net> <567B86EB.9030600@joelhalpern.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <56806AA7.6090005@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:48:07 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <567B86EB.9030600@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:48:05 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9CLlTIaqu83dQQp4IZfz7Vk33TU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:48:07 -0000
Joel, On 12/23/2015 9:47 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I note in your earlier description you commented that these reviews > (whose value you doubt) Unfortunate that you'd toss that in as a distracting aside, especially since it is not an accurate summary of what I said. > take up AD time when they should be serving as > managers. I note that many areas now routinely turn the primary review > over to a directorate. You are implying that the use of directorate reviews is instead of AD reviews. While sometimes it might be, at other times it isn't. Since my core point is that AD reviews are a strategic problem, not a strategic benefit, the fact that there are other reviews done is largely unresponsive to my point. > The ADs decide how much careful combing they do > after the directorate. That seems to enable the kind of delegating that > can help, without mandating it, and without having rules that > micro-manage how ADs do their job. Ahh, good. Another convenient IETF cliche. "Micro-manage" has become such a facile way of dismissing substantive comments. So is the cliche to leave everything up to someone else's discretion. There are strategic issues, here, Joel. The "AD under lampposts" focus is about requiring or encouraging or expecting area directors to do work that is not (very) productive, takes (significant) time, and (substantially) reduces the pool of area directors, by virtue of making the job's footprint larger than it needs to be. Worrying about the community's basic requirements and expectations on ADs is as far from micro-managing as one can get. Looking at AD Discuss text and listening to IESG Telecons[*] shows well-intentioned people who often indulge in pursuit of fine-grained detail that is possibly appropriate from an individual contributor and never appropriate from a second-level manager. Alas, it also often shows ADs who are more inclined to be swayed by their personal preferences than by the formal constraints they are supposed to be operating under. The current Nomcom's 'general' AD job description includes: > For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs simply to be satisfied that > adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review > these documents as well. That looks entirely compatible with your characterization, and my point is that having /any/ expectation that /any/ AD will review most or all I-Ds that come before the IESG is a mistake. A strategic mistake. We need to do a much better job of describing the AD job in ways that encourage and require doing specifically the work that the IETF needs to have an AD do, and to very carefully exclude tasks that bloat the job with time-consuming, low-benefit efforts. The efforts do not serve the community well and they reduce the population of AD candidates. The view that reviews by ADs, themselves, are essential requires ignoring trade-offs and, worse, cherry-picking the data. Let me repeat that even in those very rare cases that an AD catches something major, we should view that as documentation of a very deep and very serious error in a process that let's such basic problems get that far. Even expecting an AD to be deeply familiar with the documents they are 'sponsoring' is questionable; it's predicate is that the AD should be the primary representative for the work, in spite of not having been a principal in the work. If IESG handling of a specific document is not controversial -- ie, no Discusses -- then the AD doesn't need deep knowledge. If the IESG handling involves controversy, Discusses, or the like, then get some principals to be involved in the discussion, not the second-hand efforts of the AD.i ADs should worry about basic wg functioning, about community participation in the work, about community assessment of the work, and about the likelihood of community update of the work. Lines those ducks up and the spec will quack, independent of the AD review. d/ [*] Jari and the rest of the IESG deserve very considerable community thanks for opening the formal telecon meetings to this community observation. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- RE: Hotel situation Ted Lemon
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Wicinski
- RE: Hotel situation Ted Lemon
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Re: Hotel situation Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Hotel situation Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Hotel situation Lou Berger
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hotel situation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation John R Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Sarah Banks
- Re: Hotel situation Donald Eastlake
- Re: Hotel situation Livingood, Jason
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Livingood, Jason
- Re: Hotel situation Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Hotel situation Sarah Banks
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hotel situation Brian Rosen
- Re: Hotel situation Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Hotel situation Christian Hopps
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Fernando Gont
- Re: Hotel situation Fernando Gont
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Re: Hotel situation Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hotel situation Leif Johansson
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Brian Rosen
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Michal Krsek
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Venue Selection Objectives and Criteria was Re: H… Ray Pelletier
- Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Carsten Bormann
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Michal Krsek
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Andrew Sullivan
- Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Wassim Haddad
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Richard Shockey
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) tom p.
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) John Levine
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Stephen Farrell
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- RE: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ralph Droms
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Eric Burger
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) tom p.
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Hotel situation Pat (Patricia) Thaler
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Eric Burger
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Joel M. Halpern
- InterContinental BA experience so far (was: Re: H… Marco Davids
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Keith Moore
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… John Levine
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… Melinda Shore
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… John Levine
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… Fernando Gont
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Keith Moore
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situatio… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situ… John C Klensin
- Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situ… Theodore Ts'o
- Independent Stream (was Re: Cross-area review (wa… Dave Crocker
- RE: Hotel situation Eric Gray
- Re: Hotel situation Mary Barnes
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation l.wood
- Re: Hotel situation Christian Hopps
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Selection Objectives and Criteria was R… George, Wes
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Venue Data for Upcoming Meetings was Re: Hotel si… Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hotel situation tom p.
- Re: Hotel situation Bob Hinden
- Re: Hotel situation Randy Bush
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation Richard Shockey
- Re: Hotel situation Randy Bush
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation lloyd.wood
- Re: locations, was Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: locations, was Hotel situation lloyd.wood
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- "resource-rich urban environments" (was "Re: Hote… Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: not really the current Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Lloyd Wood
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation John Levine
- RE: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation Christer Holmberg
- Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation Theodore V Faber
- Re: Venue Data for Upcoming Meetings was Re: Hote… Ray Pelletier