Re: Quality of Directorate reviews

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 2F055120128 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:52:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 nHYQqAeUPlbq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBB32120120 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369C55AB; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Nov 2019 09:52:37 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; 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=5MoK05+4TZSiy4BtTGWV3BP49sLKOxEZ6isMCB2Tj AA=; b=BPCFmBOjr8LVx1PSkLKel9HbUE1oBFsXyJjwz0IzGCxDqMDXeijQSiAXP 2K0U9Sb1jqTlFr9PFp3bqaqAENCB45P8u2+SltOj7MH6QkmcfBSs3N7he2VDxcFc cFkOaBxooN0OiUzQwdbd2r0RiVUI+qLAzYCNrpYIrbVRY9xecGmJzQggdZzu05wE MIF6k/XF/kjh7mF9GG1VazDegk6MDP2ZkXB3se9sfPxF1tlYxbUg6uUxZUjPc9G2 Lb0ln6YIERN3Z8JmEOD752VfOvlQm1ZxX3dcG6mxxYuNe0Li/XbaB1Pl1QmiaZ8Y VrGkE0+Wuy+BbRCnnkURakPas8GYA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:M97CXdOKFqNX45OgBLkGLdS9n_nk8d9G5o1q3FAQsFTQjN4DzFFVyA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddujedgjeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrud ehnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghr vghtihgtshdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:M97CXWT2Pznm-_kxrkN15ZlqUa_HsjM3YNitO9mB4EFMElziefVuYg> <xmx:M97CXSQ2VqXju05GdhwEQeostfz9l8q6otqEkWX6G6oNLNUe_ELOCA> <xmx:M97CXXAGhlpZwUXTeAhlO4rbCMmliKRDIIeGf3csv1cKiYoWX0h-fA> <xmx:NN7CXaaolB26_v2UmpLcDLGe0_ZHk0tiw2bHDceDYRnoUxo515nldg>
Received: from [192.168.1.97] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A51980061; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Quality of Directorate reviews
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <7d7b2541-c5b2-dbfc-e503-36fffc6fabeb@network-heretics.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:52:34 -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: <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vjTyFxwc9UBJi23ydeAZADDclqo>
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 14:52:40 -0000

On 11/6/19 6:03 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:

> 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.

As long as working groups are as siloed as they are, this is unlikely 
any WG that affects interests that are outside of its narrow scope.   
And it's very dangerous to assume that WGs are competent to produce high 
quality work in isolation at least with our current processes.   Though 
I'd certainly be in favor of some kind of explicit extra-WG review 
earlier in a WG's or document's lifespan.

Keith