Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> 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) <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
>>> Sent: 06 November 2019 11:03
>>> To: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; ietf <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/11/2019 21:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> 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
>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>