IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 10 November 2019 02:05 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 67AAE1200D5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:05:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ZSdAKPeOyfLI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:05:16 -0800 (PST)
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 D3F7C12001E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:05:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [115.171.60.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DDCC33897C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 21:02:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]]
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com> <8b387d57-f056-7de3-9851-a431b17b67b4@network-heretics.com> <c97440e1-c6bb-8219-2970-357d9c45beb2@gmail.com> <fa406d85-babb-9821-047f-ad7efbdd23f5@network-heretics.com> <11796.1573157656@localhost> <26D1F92D-67A9-4F96-9FFF-76D525C4BE6E@piuha.net> <C8225595-4B6E-462D-BB7D-31D8E7ADFA1C@tzi.org>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <4e64b473-82d6-9a40-475c-06ecb1c33685@sandelman.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:05:08 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C8225595-4B6E-462D-BB7D-31D8E7ADFA1C@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0DE08D4FC03C639BDC586A23"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cIr04WX_lqSJCPhDXnCxnWCpqJk>
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, 10 Nov 2019 02:05:19 -0000


On 2019-11-09 9:36 a.m., Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Strengthening the directorate review system (with the objective to
> reduce variance in review quality and timing) is very well worth some
effort.

I think that we are in agreement here.

My recent experience is that I could not get (timely) feedback from the
reviewers as to whether or not they were happy with the changes. I think
that this is a chronic situation, so the ADs have learnt that a negative
review doesn't mean much if there has been a revision to the document
since.

So they go ahead anyway, and then the AD winds up redoing the review,
and being uncertain if the WG actually thought about the review comments
and proceeded anyway.
This is a serious commitment by the reviewers; that's why I want better
acknowledgment for them.
(And I'm not worried about the way that John and John about having too
many categories)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email