Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@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 398FE120120 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:50:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 Qip5kqXTSnMz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (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 AEE33120128 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:50:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id e187so12076652qkf.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 06:50:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HBve7aTflC3HJuWRHwN+i2L++27aKBhLwisDpTwiq+4=; b=RSZvsML0sz3EwaHK2fU9SuM4bkhWAh889iG6R7Ed94V0M1bafYyXsw8Q+DUkyIOXgY mVShtuXzyo3E+PzIh3zPTZjMW+3gqhSPZrtdcm52iW+6WqZ5yTMsLscrpjF88PDDaMh1 V/tUmxaslkzUYGA4LWSZXC5vhMe3vlSH8CR977/TYzK8GyumrfixcQe107klceqRarCk ztvOpTMQXDFmTjk38aRj8WTFsxdoVn6X2P9fhRwqL61oT39Dd7CIdazIxjpyAUxSp1mH /kVtT3q/AftoN8qMq7piwzAjvQAcsLUAi6Jceb3FRgQhucNPsxgCmOnPFuFBVUrT58w0 Dn9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HBve7aTflC3HJuWRHwN+i2L++27aKBhLwisDpTwiq+4=; b=Q0RHn5rIb9Vl+yT3eeqaI4BZbVNzbDETurGSvg8zfx3fvXwBEXZ0bHu5xvtuNfW4bH ZjGn+wMyk7xLmjgCmrkAKeDp/HLU9yxgbOTHhVXr+cieScW6AbZxA/sFZ5gcwrYSq4LH S3jOfzwfSQl4UBQUXi8f8D3cc0T7DHcfO2u4yquTW6VKOKfWntIU16chsESCLK0qXY9J BP7f2zuXuFyEQlYb1Fnv1jy/7fc/q9SYs8skHxpH9j0/OP7y/EKC55a59ciNDu3xpA/O eDWdS9h2ZEv/t/o3tbuCiDvXDKktgBeRJ44ztn0Y4hKETn7AyC6nUSwvQ7BvC9NyECfH 4fFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWq3p0h2a8pyA3FgBg+x3Kw6uVF366DofhybYOyJ4LQgdgisxom NbPb6OY8Ae8w2D6kglcU12o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyIDWFRfOW9/re4ck1UgTtLIn4T91ItC2/qzRaZjpw3dS8ND7cBPqz3AyBONjssgYuFI4jK9Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:f003:: with SMTP id l3mr2345055qkg.331.1573051825760; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 06:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2620::1004:4:e43e:7bd5:fae9:4128? ([2620:0:1004:4:e43e:7bd5:fae9:4128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n55sm13150257qta.24.2019.11.06.06.50.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 06:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7A7C12-52B0-4BAF-AE7B-395B8552F83C@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:50:24 -0500
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <13F07515-F218-44D4-A334-AC68AA72A423@gmail.com>
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> <MN2PR11MB43669E4CEF13CDA51A764F9AB5790@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DB7A7C12-52B0-4BAF-AE7B-395B8552F83C@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ETzm3auhAOF5db_TTDohDVvFAvg>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:50:31 -0000


> On Nov 6, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> That is a good idea.
> 
> I would also like to see a statement from the responsible AD that they have reviewed the document in detail and believe that it is fully ready to go to for review by people other than the WG and their own directorate. In some cases I really wonder it a draft has been read end to end by anyone before it is passed on for review by the wider community. 

I would support this idea if you s/responsible AD/WG chairs/.  The first point of responsibility here is to get *uniformly* high-quality docs out of working groups.  It's been a while since I was an AD, but I recall a wide variability in the quality of docs coming out of WGs.  Many docs were ready for review and required little or no feedback from my AD review.  But there were enough docs that required more extensive revision that a significant amount of my time was spent on managing those documents.

Perhaps part of the problem is insufficient negative consequences when a WG forwards docs to the IESG that aren't ready?  

- Ralph

> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6 Nov 2019, at 11:42, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.
>> 
>> This could serve two purposes:
>> - some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
>> - encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting. 
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
>>> Sent: 06 November 2019 11:03
>>> To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
>>> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>;; ietf <ietf@ietf.org>;
>>> Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/11/2019 21:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>>>>> If we want the IESG job to be more reasonably sized, we have to take
>>>>>> work away from the ADs. 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> +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.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Alexey
>>> 
>>> We shouldn't be depending on last-minute quality checks to maintain the
>>> quality of our output.  Working groups should be producing documents that
>>> are ready to publish, and develop trust that their documents are high
>>> quality.
>>> 
>>> - Ralph
>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>