[secdir] Running a bit of an experiment and maybe you can help...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

One of the things about being an AD is that it takes too
much time. The IESG are constantly trying to (find the time
to:-) figure out ways to reduce the time needed for doing
the AD gig. One of the things I'm going to try for a while
is to limit the time I spend on document review/balloting,
and you can maybe help a bit with that. Reviewing the on
average 366 pages of Internet draft for each telechat is one
of the most time-consuming parts of the AD job.

For a while (until IETF94 or until it has been seen to
not work), I'm going to not start reading documents for IESG
telechats until the day before. In my timezone that gives me
1.5 days to go over the lot. (I'll slide the 1.5 day window
about as needed when other stuff's going on.)

I'll try keep some measures and report back at IETF94. (Feel
free to suggest useful and easy things to measure.)

That's more likely to work out if you good folks can a) try a
little harder to make sure we've gotten a secdir review before
telechat-3 days, (that is, by the Monday before) either by doing
your review when assigned or by letting Tero know early you
can't get to it so he can assign someone else and b) if you can
try to write the reviews in such a way that I could just post
the review as a ballot (assuming the reviewer and I agree about
stuff, which is common), and (c) if you're willing to stay
copied on the discussion of the draft beyond the telechat that
can also really help. (Just note that in your review if you
remember to.)

Wrt point (a), if there is something we can change to make
the assignments more visible, please let us and Tero know so
you don't inadvertently drop one.

Point (b) means that the review text is better written so
as to be ok to send to say the WG that produced the draft
and so that the set of actions that'd be needed to address
the comment are as clear as possible and are such that someone
could relatively easily check if they've been done or not
when looking at a diff. (If you've time and can look at the
ballot history for some documents you've reviewed it'd be
great if you could better characterise those differences.)

WRT (c), as we said in Prague, it's entirely ok if you don't
want to or can't deal with extended discussion on a draft.
When that's the case, just let us know and we'll take care
of it.

Whilst I'm trying this Kathleen will be operating as normal
so we hope to not badly drop any balls no matter how this
works out. (If we do, blame me though:-)

Cheers,
S.