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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 November 2019 20:16 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 57C3C120D3F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Pq2kGvxogsrs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A75D9120D3A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788243897B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:13:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9046B913 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:16:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
In-Reply-To: <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost>
References: <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> <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:16:50 -0500
Message-ID: <12325.1573157810@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mhmaBtAnLq0CGA9cnk0pC4DZenA>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:16:54 -0000

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:54:59AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    >> Here's a thought experiment.
    >>
    >> Update the standards process such that the approval of Proposed Standard
    >> RFCs, after an IETF last call including some specified cross-area review
    >> requirements, is done by the WG consensus process with the consent of the AD .
    >>
    >> Why would that work? Because it now incents the WG chairs by making them,
    >> in effect, where the buck stops. So the WG chairs and AD (typically
    >> a committee of three) will feel the obligation to get everything
    >> right. And it scales.

    > So, no more IESG review?  What would we need the IESG for anymore?  It
    > would be gone, I guess?

IESG review for Internet Standard, not PS.

    > Sure, it will scale better.  But quality will suffer.

More documents promoted to IS.
More time to recruit, manage and train WG chairs. I.e. MANAGING

    >> [...]. So the WG chairs and AD (typically a committee of three) [...]

    > Typically one of the ADs is uninvolved with a WG for which the other is
    > responsible, so that would be a committee of two, not three.

Two chairs + 1 AD.
It would ideally also involve a few directorate reviewers.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-