Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call announcements and records]

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I will note that the Routing ADs introduced the policy that the Routing 
Directorate review should be done, for routing area documents, before 
the draft is sent to th AD.  That dramatically helps the responsible 
AD.  However, asking other areas to revview documents thaat are entering 
working group last call seems to increase the work in ways that are 
undesirable.  Unless of course one assumes that WG last call is a 
formality :-)

Yours,

Joel

On 10/16/2024 12:32 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> Another choice, that perhaps could be considered, would be to initiate 
> the directorate reviews slightly earlier in the cycle.  E.g., at the 
> point that the WG has said that is ready before publication but before 
> the AD has reviewed and agreed to publish.  In fact, input from the 
> directorate reviews might be very helpful input to decide whether the 
> document is really ready to progress, or if there are significant 
> issues outstanding.
>
> Of course, this might mean that a second follow up lighter directorate 
> review is needed to cover any changes that occurred between the 
> initial review and the version going before the IESG ballot, but if 
> that second review was focussed on the differences and issues raised 
> previously then I would have thought that the increase in workload on 
> the directorate would probably be fairly small, and hopefully 
> manageable.  I.e., I am assuming that the second review would be 
> assigned back to the originate directorate reviewer.
>
> Generally, I think that it is better to get as many reviews as early 
> as possible in the process when the folks working on the document and 
> still very fresh and vested in getting the document published.  
> Perhaps bigger changes to the process could also be considered …
>
> Anyway, just a thought.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 16 October 2024 at 13:47
> *To: *Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *John C Klensin <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Telechat reviews [Re: Tooling glitch in Last Call 
> announcements and records]
>
> We should make it a general policy to add two weeks to the last call
> period when a document is long, for some value of "long" (I might say
> over 60 pages of substance (not counting change logs and such)).  I
> try to get to assigning ART-ART reviews a couple of times a week, but
> that still means that, depending upon the timing, with a two-week last
> call I might be giving a reviewer only a 7- or 8-day deadline for a
> 100+-page document, and I always blanch when I have to do that.  While
> ADs regularly have to review long documents with a week or two notice,
> I think it's unreasonable to expect last-call reviews from
> directorates/review-teams on that notice for long documents.
>
> We decided on the two-week last call period at a different time, when
> the IETF was a different organization.  Maybe we should re-think it
> now, and keep in mind that an extra two weeks of last-call review is
> *not* going to be the most significant delay in a document's life
> cycle.
>
> Barry, ART-ART manager
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 5:53 PM Murray S. Kucherawy 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:01 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the clarification.  Seems entirely reasonable with one or
> >> two qualifications.  First, if you (and/or other areas) are doing
> >> things that way, the review needs to be posted to the Last Call list
> >> well before the Last Call closes out so there is time for people from
> >> the Area and the broader community to comment on it.   Second, if the
> >> posted end of Last Call date is unreasonable or unattainable for some
> >> reason, I'd hope the responsible AD could be notified of that early
> >> in the Last Call window -- at least no later than a week before it is
> >> closed -- rather than, e.g., after the close date.  That would permit
> >> actions, if needed, to be taken without things looking like a game of
> >> "Gotcha" with the AD and WG and/or author(s) responsible for the
> >> document.
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, in my time on the IESG, I haven't found the 
> need to manage this vigorously. If there's a directorate review I'd 
> really like to have, I have the discretion to wait for it before 
> scheduling the document onto a telechat even though Last Call has 
> ended.  If the review has come in but it provokes discussion, I have 
> the discretion to wait for that discussion to resolve before moving 
> forward.  If we're talking about a document that isn't one of mine and 
> a review comes in from my area review team raising something on which 
> I'd like to dive deeper, I can use DISCUSS for that (so long as I am 
> diligent about clearing it once the discussion is had, of course).  
> That's been my strategy for a while now and it's never raised a 
> complaint, which (so far, at least) includes the document you're 
> talking about here.
> >
> > The thing I used to determine if the review has come in is the 
> datatracker.  I will check the last-call list too, but the datatracker 
> provides a nice snapshot of which reviews have been requested and 
> which have come in, and is usually where I start when checking on a 
> document's status.
> >
> > Just to keep this all public: For this particular document, I have 
> pinged the assigned directorate reviewers to ask them to upload their 
> reviews ASAP on this document.  As I said elsewhere, I might be fine 
> advancing a document missing a couple of directorate reviews, but not 
> all of them. If they don't come in soon, I'll reach out to the review 
> team chairs to ask for reassignments.
> >
> > Lastly, I would definitely appreciate a notification (automated or 
> otherwise) when a directorate review is going to be late.  Right now 
> all the tracker tells me is "not done", which could mean "not done 
> yet" or could mean "don't hold your breath".
> >
> > -MSK
>