RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Anecdotal. Mine. Over enough years to represent a pattern. (I'm not
> alone in this, but I'm reporting my own experience) In 25 years, not one
> single RFC I've worked on had a serious problem caught by an AD, though
> many were eventually discovered to have serious problems. Some were
> delayed by large numbers of non-substantive or flat-out-wrong AD
> Discusses, however. So we got significant costs with insignificant
> benefits and significant damage.

Dave, this may not have occurred to you, but there is another correlation
here that may be the one that matters: _you_ have not had any AD reviews
catch significant issues.   Perhaps you are exceptional.   I am not being
facetious--I suspect that this is in fact the case.

> Inconvenient is such a mild word. The aggregate effect of these kinds of
> hassles is decisions by potential participants to take their
> specifications elsewhere.

If they don't want AD review, they can publish through the ISE!   I don't
think many people realize this is an option, but AFAIK that's the whole point
of having an ISE: to publish things that really are requests for comments.