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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, David,
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I like that idea - it provides a no-action-required means for an AD
>> to not have to do anything about a draft, while assuring the community
>> that her Area has it covered, and setting the expectation that an AD
>> doing nothing about a draft is ok (because her colleague has it covered).
>>
>
> You poked at something here that turns out to matter to the TSV ADs, so
> just to make it explicit ...
>
> Martin and I do talk about what's on 80 percent of the telechat agendas,
> and divide up at least some of the reading, but sometimes we don't talk
> (because we're busy), and even if we did - we might know that Spencer read
> draft-ietf-little-rabbit-froofroo because he knows a lot about rodents and
> Martin trusted him and balloted No-Obj, but no one else, even on the IESG
> and much less on the notification list or in the broader community, knows
> that today.
>
> That's not a huge problem (obviously), but it has turned out to be helpful
> that some people know that (when we tell them), and if this was obvious to
> everyone automatically, well, ...
>

Thanks for the ideas.  I agree with Spencer, this happens between ADs when
needed already, so I don't think a change in the ballots help as they have
this flexibility with the meaning of No Objection already.


>
> "Communication is very important ... as I learned in my second marriage"
>
> Spencer
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen