RE: Quality of Directorate reviews

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 06 November 2019 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 2238D1200F9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:38:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 kf1pxFhAOmA2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F88120C8D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477TfT578SzFLp; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:38:09 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1573051089; bh=CGmFBmIxiLREeYjXCM5AgXsLv040TV+A+UM0+vuFjZE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=a7n+NxAWyKPIsotcByRDvrAys6ZFRD8ReoPhednhPyOP2R8mHE9ouEbo4HH0LZssj s6CeSXHQeL6j9YJZ05dmxaCC7YaLUt0Vrbcp69Ot7SMYBvbRkbrxbbuGYYaLvb+dns 2dbsIN4AOL4xAiL1Umz2/DiZf6IKjMGL65SRltk0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gMsOM5hWa2xQ; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:38:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:38:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0D9856001610; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:38:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A5F23D09A; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:38:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:38:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Quality of Directorate reviews
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB43669E4CEF13CDA51A764F9AB5790@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911060937020.10926@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <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> <MN2PR11MB43669E4CEF13CDA51A764F9AB5790@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/sO_LhpEviRGiWaWbZicYEQBhePA>
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:38:17 -0000

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:

> Perhaps RFCs could list (within the document) who reviewed/approved them, and in which role/capacity the review had been performed.
>
> This could serve two purposes:
> - some minimal reward for those individuals taking the time to review the document,
> - encouragement for the reviewers to ensure that an adequate review has been performed based on the role/capacity in which they are acting.

I think I like this idea, but also, speaking for myself I would refuse
to review a few more documents of things that are too far out of my
area of expertise (which might be a good or bad thing, depending on
whether anyone else steps up)

Paul