Re: Separate ADs roles from IESG - draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, October 21, 2013 00:18 -0700 SM <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi John,
> At 07:18 20-10-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
>> For an earlier and somewhat different take on this issue and a
>> variation on a proposal, see the long-expired
>> draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00.
> 
> Some of the comments on the thread point to document review
> being less than a quarter the  time the Area Director spends
> weekly on the role.  draft-klensin-stds-review-panel-00 is a
> starting point to tackle the time commitment.

I want to stress that it is just a starting point, that it is
now very old, and that, if I were to write up a proposal today
(including after reflecting on the discussions of the last
several days), it would almost certainly be different.

So, while I appreciate your point-by-point analysis, I think
many of those things could be adjusted as needed to meet
community needs.    One of them is specifically the "yes" or
"no" part.  Today, I would expect the panel to justify a "no"
although less in terms of "change Y" (see my response to Joel)
and more in terms of "think more about this".   Either way, a
"no" returns the document to the responsible AD who could decide
(presumably with the advice and consent of the IESG and
consultation with the WG as appropriate) to kill the document,
hand it back to the WG, better document why it should be
approved and hand it back, or, in extreme cases, to kill or
reorganize the WG and/or decide to handle the document in some
other way.

best,
    john