IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 22 December 2015 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F951ACEB1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 G7qCS0z-M1EP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 ACF8F1ACEB4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k189so143947198qkc.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=dLTW4Sv/L+QHvL7/p1AQ+4nM/xkMs25o54Otddrwyy4=; b=CF5Y7Nw8wPKPtp2EBYI38tQBLqPR1VuUMDy2C4/WP/MkB0qBy5U4pKcJW6kfMfhqnU ZYO/5yAuf9QHo5adB23seFypOYWnGPmFshngVmN1msy+B1cG4zPHkP77JqW5Er3IuZuz rXrmiU536PPU2WkUhS1CRRhz784vPhKSIjuKRlOv0E4qX2Uho5l61hoRQYZMnT12MXDP UAkpr9rqoBgRKAzMkUMnTgUiC7KlLjQCA6O2xlDZCoAIRY+dftgJzXGti/DmbCywu6aJ X/7FsWnWM1vDvCWPXvDd86WerJW6EPvfcxGEHDx0pNtSwmhWCq5K84AEAqGr2K5wQLsS PJSw==
X-Received: by 10.55.72.146 with SMTP id v140mr28688718qka.63.1450742703886; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:c0c4:1005::4d? ([2001:420:c0c4:1005::4d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b80sm15105656qkb.17.2015.12.21.16.05.02 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:05:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0DFD50F3-CEAA-485D-A767-2017A81CA72A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:36:26 -0500
Message-Id: <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.com> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.com> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Zn7_Yq0Zj1WRO17LJ16R8Qx2mz8>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:05:06 -0000

> On Dec 20, 2015, at 12:56 PM 12/20/15, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> 
> On 12/18/2015 4:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I am prepared to believe that we are in fact doing it more
>> systematically.  If so, however, the argument you make for the
>> kismet-review effect of full IETF meetings is actually weaker, since
>> the system could be set up to encourage things via lists and so on.
> 
> 
> Well...  That depends on how reviews are done and how the kismet-contacts affect that.
> 
> Massive numbers and types of problems get missed by the reviews that are currently done.

Can you say more here?  How do you know these problems are being missed?  When you write "missed by the reviews that are currently done", do you mean missed altogether or missed by, say, the WG review and picked up in IESG review?

Given the number of problems I see in some documents during Int-Dir or Gen-ART, I'm sure there are more problems that I'm not picking up.  It's a reasonable inference that there are problems not caught by any of our reviews.  I'm curious about specifics...

- Ralph

>  That's not because people don't care or are insufficiently knowledgeable.  I'm not sure what could reliably done to reliably improve the catching of serious problems, but currently we are reliably missing lots of stuff, lots of times.
> 
> Kismet contacts increase the range of brains and eyes looking at stuff.  In statistical terms, that makes it more likely that someone will catch one or another significant issue.  Who and when and what aren't predictable, but the overall odds get better.
> 
> d/
> 
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email