IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: "Per Area" and "Per AD" review ballots?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 4EBD51AC3F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 AzqpSrlKe0KI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x232.google.com (mail-lb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::232]) (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 8C05B1A9101 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbug6 with SMTP id ug6so47375469lbb.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d5wCZzJP6jRH5LbGaUd+PwmaqPjDx6qx/uLzoy5ypbo=; b=l9FNMijwcrm0OYOWFY/3dQVQwNfRWFy50XDQwxsgERj9g4SbVX/KQ+AGC3OuppiYJ9 97LcpY3oi56O++X51+uCK2VNKvYPu1FjBOHLyA45CktaCvaGE9SMaY8AFrhRFFiVbXpk g+iHkQE0wJloVGM1LOIBnGw5MoK/MT1QnwDdISFGYR1uJm8mUkkq/pZkAzHJshipB52C RuVgtTzUq6n7vWdLUI5gx3+WPNZXlCUoZyilTeNLsYklOoFBNRyRAEFaYM9udX21qVNW JjMs6zTwCftfwkwygWrWMt+8HBquvd28X4znkDph4zm9E+sjp771WBfK0hI9lO4z9/tt 6AgQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.18.225 with SMTP id z1mr14692512lad.124.1427394198108; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.45.203 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F08A8BAA-744B-4CAF-BB65-3AE213347C97@nominum.com>
References: <CAKKJt-cjQgvuGkwFvCu5ELQEw9sbrYhVMP+xgujcKPLps7VRJg@mail.gmail.com> <55143567.8060800@gmail.com> <F08A8BAA-744B-4CAF-BB65-3AE213347C97@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:23:18 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JHyD9RVu--XiY9Gb4ePPCTKWod8
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgAQu=rmmVjQB82T-oX9=+Sk-uMKonrtOtiCyz19KZupg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Per Area" and "Per AD" review ballots?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BLFXbr7Bm83XkQABD73w0LO8Yvo>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:23:21 -0000

Maybe introduce a new state 'Other AD' which would be set
automatically if an AD has not entered a ballot but another in their
area has.

So if there are three ADs and one enters a ACCEPT, her two colleagues
state will be set to OTHER-AD. Then another reads the draft and
decides it is a disaster area, they change their vote from OTHER-AD to
 DISCUSS.



On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a real problem here?
>
> Speaking for myself, it would have been helpful to have had a clearer sense of what to look at and what not to waste my time on early on.   I got a solid reality check from Stewart Bryant about this midway through my first year, but it took well into my second year to really figure out which drafts to review closely and which to skim.   However, I think it's worth having ADs skim drafts so that they can notice cross-area issues, and for that to work they either have to be able to ballot, or else they have to use peer pressure.   I think being able to ballot is probably better.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email