Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 0BC4D120987 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:33:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 Ri6iq2Uhoply for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:33:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from camel.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (camel.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E3921209FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:33:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7196EE0C8D; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:33:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-45-192.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.45.192]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C7BC7E0B9F; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:33:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a7.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:33:24 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Company-Turn: 237b74c4765131d0_1573155204263_3343075011
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1573155204263:1618985096
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1573155204263
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301DCA2C08; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:33:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=Z/cHCqsz5WJLsc AyOcAzNWIHqPo=; b=DkxGCY/iGqHJJeiN2jX9nybzFd7nRxIzMmbr9/5oSUY5V/ 8dGM4VMFLJjKV8By4Z3IQ/lwYVDfg9YOo8GQBsTLUb09W5srhjOPutihdcJBThAo CCwMrJTpnNlKk1PYws02/78dMXYPzKPmHkV6tFPS6ZaN7FY4gPX8SBvr0NA/A=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a7.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FBE9A2C21; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 13:33:15 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a7
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Message-ID: <20191107193314.GE12148@localhost>
References: <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost> <563174A8-3961-476C-889D-A712EFD5DAEA@mnt.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <563174A8-3961-476C-889D-A712EFD5DAEA@mnt.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xgqy7pR1tu2BhnHDCIzm0XDdr1o>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:33:28 -0000

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:34:28AM +0100, Leif Johansson wrote:
> > 7 nov. 2019 kl. 02:49 skrev Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>;:
> >> Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them,
> >> in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically
> >> a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything
> >> right. And it scales.
> > 
> > So, no more IESG review?  What would we need the IESG for anymore?  It
> > would be gone, I guess?
> > 
> > Sure, it will scale better.  But quality will suffer.
> 
> Why do you think that would be the case?

Well, it doesn't necessarily follow that fewer eyeballs / less review ==
poorer quality, but it is a fair assumption.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is, and we might have to
experiment somewhat.  Can we run an experiment where for some WG(s) we
don't require IESG review of their PS documents?

Nico
--