Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 6, 2019, at 5:34 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On 05/11/2019 21:50, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> 
>> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> If we want the IESG job to be more reasonably sized, we have to take
>>> work away from the ADs. As far as I can see, that means taking away
>>> their duty of acting as final reviewers. I don't want to name names
>>> because I don't think the ADs are to be blamed individually, but some
>>> of them spend *enormous* effort on detailed reviews.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I think that there is a lack of trust by ADs of the various directorates.
> 
> Other ADs have commented on this, but I think I need to repeat what they
> said and expand on it.
> 
> Results are vary varied. Some are quite good (e.g. Gen-Art) and others
> really depend on reviewer. ADs responsible for Directorates are faces
> with the choice of firing half of their Directorates (which has some
> rather unfortunate consequences) and/or raise the bar on who should be
> allowed to join. We already struggle to recruit people at all levels of
> our organization.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Alexey

We shouldn't be depending on last-minute quality checks to maintain the quality of our output.  Working groups should be producing documents that are ready to publish, and develop trust that their documents are high quality.

- Ralph

>