Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 06 November 2019 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9600912085C for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:00:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZrW9EW3qsJMV; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 022881208E7; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:00:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w30so3768709wra.0; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:00:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qAHcYYl1l2gOp3/nCPK/vI6qWsENv0gouWvDjHemWU4=; b=T9OLQrDSmXBSAplDDcH6pzUFWymI3m0yhczK3ROZmSV/za9anz2mDDiP9PX18fKl86 YyIQkWBJvo7GiT9SV44A4hq5kCPfLJZIMzgnDAbboWbp8Gbg6T6fo9KFe+lYLZ2k0V6K mMWNX+H5xeO+EdTCEz9SJ50UqfYTgtVzaCfmpRUtzHVCanoPy9vZ/iqCiGe0jzc2cpM1 PtVL3gokk4+SPk+wgyVW0NLrnAASPeK64jL4ODOpTttaY73oGwvdKriWYqFLrAG7RVzc dqgLSby/uwwaZqQhprleusfTU5aq3fx1mWSqdrqck+pF4myFwTSqLUXaZDDTSPFblsCR ti8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=qAHcYYl1l2gOp3/nCPK/vI6qWsENv0gouWvDjHemWU4=; b=Ar+ZQxtkkDtYgLnAAvuvH9eAgXyB8PjohBHXvjBXh1LCjE/zvX0OIJoI1M6tKSWNL/ 6l75nlhptPva1A1BgqHgTpx+nKCIqn9rNFBkilUgVjTosv4nqbDOMSsbfnn9zZwlrhM1 OQ8ZqBdyPGgGXKaWIYN21+aP9EsrAGxqV61Ur+ia9gFiNfBpIue0tDMSlv6EVwvTlRuX lDYOxcWCCJ5QYoLRqY3JjaA9j97mw9iyW/7q9YSKLWbqzRuCgn6cvXOdF68IfPhaIckA ApRk2Pw2GWrKp6OXq1x7lfl7BbiEa52yAZUVTuVMz5G4+m4AAz01AvDIpMNWQi7HkXT4 3Rmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWpIyT2RyhInXd8d2YnFx1m3gMtqP2QXM1+5EgmHlIDxM54/9im XiC59O94MtgP6xvfZSD1NJc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw8rK1MIHV0ut5BwlJRxmbmrQNNHnED+BITg5VJbCN3HKNSjVQYYEMDNiGBQ4GPnuhMPmWs4g==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:43c3:: with SMTP id v3mr3192563wrr.327.1573056012392; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id t134sm2541077wmt.24.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
From: Stewart Bryant <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:00:10 +0000
Cc: ietf <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 16:00:24 -0000

> On 5 Nov 2019, at 22:54, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> On 05-Nov-19 22:24, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> ....
>> The past few generic IESG job descriptions (as sent to Nomcom) have had
>> some interesting text in this front (quoting from
>> % An AD should be able to personally review every Internet-Draft that they
>> % sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs to be satisfied that
>> % adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review these
>> % documents as well. 
> I'm sure the last clause is true, but maybe it's an error to include it in the job description almost as if it is a duty.
> On 06-Nov-19 05:35, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>> 1) AD are 'responsible' so they do need to check the intensive work of WG, shepherd, IETF last call and directorate
> Yes, but that does *not* necessarily require this:
>> 6) reviews are probably 50% of our time
> And Eric also said:
>> 2) sometimes the directorate reviews come too late for the IESG ballot for approval
> In that case, perhaps the response should be to defer the ballot automatically, and make it public that the reason is a late review.
> Also, do some areas only request telechat reviews? In my experience in Gen-ART, most issues and fixes occur during Last Call reviews, so that the telechat review is often a formality.
> On 06-Nov-19 08:17, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>>> Does every AD read all the drafts?  I don't know.  But changing the process to say one AD from each area would reduce the load.
>> Some divide it up.  Pete & Barry had a split.  If there was a big load, Stephen would start from one end of the list and I'd start from the other.  We both mostly wanted to 'read' them all though.
> The word that stands out for me is "wanted". Similarly, it's because I *want* to track the technology that I've been a Gen-ART reviewer for many years. But if (as people say every year at about this time) we really need to reduce the AD workload to something more like part-time, some things have to change.
> It seems to me that the IESG itself can make such changes, since this is a matter of procedures rather than our formal rules. It's too late for this year, but maybe next year's NomCom could have an easier job.
>   Brian

Maybe we need a larger more formal review team that aims to have a few people read every draft before it gets onto IETF LC?

As I have said before I am not entirely convinced the ADs are reading their own drafts before they go to the telecast. I have a simple barometer for this, how can a draft ever get to IETF LC or directorate review with serious nits errors? That is machine checkable so there should be none of those. 
- Stewart