IETF Logo Mail Archive

dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 09 August 2020 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 4F68B3A0B4B; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 18:34:52 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 B4h_4YS8dpWs; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 18:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A7D3A0B49; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 18:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AB7389D5; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 21:14:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fIadCqRidUYS; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 21:14:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C00389D0; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 21:14:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA83C7D; Sat, 8 Aug 2020 21:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: dealing with AD reviews in the week before the IESG call
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 21:34:48 -0400
Message-ID: <12164.1596936888@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NTRfT8jsWnLvd24OkLAaTBTbcBA>
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 01:34:52 -0000

Hi,

I have heard that revising IDs in the week before they are on the IESG call
makes Area Directors *grumpy*, because they wind up reviewing different
versions.

On the other hand, I would prefer to clear all DISCUSSes
make it clear that COMMENTs, are being dealt with.
ADs have, I think, limited L1 CPU cache and responding to them as fast as
possible seems to be a good idea.

It seems that the answer is to:
  1) reply ASAP, with git commits/diffs attached.
  2) do not publish new IDs until all the changes from all reviews are
     collected.
  3) publish a revised ID sometime on Thursday morning.  Just before
     the meeting?  Or just after?

Asking for a friend. :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email