Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Keith Moore <> Thu, 07 November 2019 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC415120858 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:57:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=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 L-Fd5_tWPWA5 for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA8212082E for <>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07B7581; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 11:57:00 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=K8Ac26NORHOO6q2AD454jg1BRZHQj+S5/ryMDErwe Kw=; b=S1BdwR+KgEEbbjN1pVIh3GogdjFheVbhx7bc/kg2JgrIuVArcaFT/wv7z QaKko5Y+fl5OKFBXxB8UxoUwqrPmnN6eEV8hR+g4n35ZPI0V+xNB6CIa5PaNdaqH 91AQ+wGVTrrCal0fIvDm656yHxcCe0v75tzW1sj9Ont5rNXsfUkeBpnswkW4X+LC XWIau/FpGsgz8ioiC6b0rW7XfMVYktjs57U2Mr5Bgs8Mz8WleODgBw8S2RoH3AqX wrf/SbubUP7zSPktTyIk9qH5rV/F0fmRfyH5jABN2WFHVyyMKlSomlxLysnobvoZ S006YobkquRn19AUkfV8LA+CGyVoA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:20zEXYb2xDEbOG8hUKLLox1DV8ljaURud7kJIXCqekqdoRuXC-fEfw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudduledgleefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeehnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:20zEXT7iRyG4Yo77mQ3SsiLo2MOHYaN5nNHX8a0dpNIIK1_y2grg9w> <xmx:20zEXUrybi8u-mb80uwwerMXGGnxllFNwX74aTS663fkfshS8Rw_oQ> <xmx:20zEXeDaxPqTcMvAKi7jAoHyWVxGJrbOQecfvqduWFgq3Ka1pqJY4A> <xmx:20zEXb-fazZpCbNfoQweYzAk0zpnIcIXHhjSE-bdezB4-2RN3zaB9g>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F0A963060057; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:57 -0500
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:57:07 -0000

On 11/7/19 11:42 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:

> I suspect that for a lot of documents, broad cross area review beyond what Brian proposes is not necessary.   Not for all, but many things that working groups produce are very incremental.   We could have two tracks, one as Brian proposes, and another where the AD thinks more review is needed.

Sure, I agree that broad cross area review isn't necessary for every 
document.  Though I don't think the important factor is whether the work 
is "incremental", but rather, whether it affects interests beyond the 
narrow scope of the WG itself.   But even with the current process, I 
also don't think that an AD needs to read every document if it doesn't 
touch on his or her area.   So I don't think we need to change the 
process just to allow documents that don't need broad review to not be 
subjected to it.  I just assume that that fewer ADs will concern 
themselves with such documents, and for the documents that have less 
potential to wreak havoc, ADs will be more willing to trust reviews from 
directorate members and others in the community.    Voting "no 
objection" is pretty easy, after all, and ADs are busy enough that 
there's plenty of incentive to avoid unnecessary work.

> I suspect this would significantly reduce the load on the IESG and would not reduce quality.

I don't think it would reduce the load by much, since I assume the 
workload is already reduced for these documents.   And it should never 
be up to "the AD" (as in singular) to decide how broad review should 
be.   That judgment needs to be made by several people from different 
areas, even if the AD, or ADs for the area of the document in question, 
don't see the potential adverse impact.