Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 8CA93120091 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 3_qn_3k2HueB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 2CEB812008C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id d79so4167959qke.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ZQndmD7bsNtpn3fxfn6qwmj5oWF/PDDSCqebPdnLB10=; b=G10AR45eNbjJ7bv6GV1lDOO+49gu2868LwY51IegR16jlv5iL+63/yuyf/QNidCFvG ugEfmx/CuY7c6pW3vBkGFeyyxxoGWWui7pcNWV++/m/nM2pACgd+jdkrJi6PAIA6anJs 4aNDFhWjfw74rbEHMBV8uclzns2zK5sM2HMb52V3FRxqoS3nKcPKVyYvws7dmnNqv6AI rBTYw5iQdJzjIuXll8Ga1yQ6Pmqjv/kkOSqHc4RrxDdRySiJWEkKvNlG1RE45CjcPP6I LVQtfQPPgGaQEAOUnWi4B+QFwD8DkjmhRJnZ+mT0RFH0hJ9CfXeoA2bcnNhtt9ZZGxiZ l33w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ZQndmD7bsNtpn3fxfn6qwmj5oWF/PDDSCqebPdnLB10=; b=jua22Nn58aNMmc13CqhJAgVn2FYpkJI0Ae6HrFIXAKrBrc+u2KgalpdL1SCQ+FXbvv tZ6t9fHSa6n2oNcSTnvSGpApQRaVqPexGNYMf0e7zVkeQRtid1kAFyhiDUYDVg/9cELj r1AU2TQX0Br8fYMCjVgGZJ65lHC/Z3r0KUOgX+NabbL602m5PUFRO/trzILdeoMamHBv kxana4qDtSB9ctP324RLFq4KRI/OYub0N1Y9FOleeJxSzt5Q8Xx8Gf2V/DMkAINwtpu5 cMhLA2id1HCXx/L4z+AtjKDWX3wx8S8AYiVmv/5Qj6h3tKWqhUv2+FZoAUyTsLnDuPKF 0Olw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUX5RQi7GdvCNHg3qlFJUj4AyeR23E2DtHvGXu0LYNG0/JNmKgs T+lJhuoFcRV+HwVxhgFXx7Qguw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz+BGOQ1MI8KopuuMvRcFqXj5wj3lNkT4bPHVzFNxGLyuSXfpMIS2Xcac+lYVtYoettgGUI5g==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1106:: with SMTP id o6mr3993344qkk.272.1562348739218; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 10:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:c1a2:1:1898:c480:1567:a6a6? ([2001:470:c1a2:1:1898:c480:1567:a6a6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z17sm446382qtn.13.2019.07.05.10.45.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 10:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <129605FD-CA58-4B46-8942-D2BC9E7D6716@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7735495C-2081-4621-BF85-0FB9B5CE5F22"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:45:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20190705172833.GK3508@localhost>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
References: <b18809df-ee98-fb29-b6c4-04ed579e163a@network-heretics.com> <20190704052335.GF3508@localhost> <CABcZeBOw6w2tm4YYFdmLwC23ufPDupt2D1Vzwjn4Pi9bbf6R-w@mail.gmail.com> <20190704192057.GI3508@localhost> <CABcZeBMC-VRfea3YqLSs6yhtEq4VtfdO5L56v87KH=vMR4y=+A@mail.gmail.com> <5c9048ef-ba2b-a362-3941-82eacc664b64@mnt.se> <CABcZeBPv8xUMbSt+SDL_X56SBB_CPyBMKZaQMbPd=6M-xT+hpQ@mail.gmail.com> <19233.1562339969@localhost> <20190705163101.GJ3508@localhost> <E49856E1-4DBC-488E-AE15-D48B5357E61D@fugue.com> <20190705172833.GK3508@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MY4tbSixDWgzylxqdI_sPpBNE8o>
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: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 17:45:44 -0000

On Jul 5, 2019, at 1:28 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> Ok, so let's fix that.
> 
> My take is that a) directorates and shepherds/ADs should be expected to
> provide interim reviews as requested, b) WG chairs should request them
> when the ether the chairs believe, or the WG has consensus that, "now is
> a good time for interim review.
> 
> Interim reviews should also be announced on the ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org> list, but
> review feedback should be on WG list.  This invites interim reviews from
> the wider community as well.
> 
> Now, I don't know how to incentivize the wider community to provide
> interim reviews.  Reviewing I-Ds is really time-consuming and energy
> sapping for me personally -- the biggest problem is making the time and
> finding a way to get it funded when it's a lot of time.
> 
> I suspect that the directorates are short on cycles too.  I get that
> what I'm proposing may not be feasible at this time.


This is the essence of the problem, and you’ve proposed a solution that’s incompatible with it.   If it were possible to do your solution, I would agree with it.

I’m not sure there is a solution, but it would be interesting to see if there is something left once we throw out the “should be expected” idea.   Is there a way to do more interim reviews?   What is actually stopping us from doing this stuff?

A lot of times what stops me is that the document is badly written and difficult to read, and so it’s so much work to read it that I put it off until it’s too late, or give up.  It may be that it’s possible for us to get better at writing understandable and readable documents, and that this would have a greater positive impact on the process than shoulding at directorates.

What’s nice about getting better at writing understandable documents is that it’s the authors who would have to do this, and they are motivated to do what it takes to get more review (or if they aren’t, maybe it’s okay that the document died).

Do you see this as a useful thing to attempt, and if so, do you think it’s possible to do it?