Re: IESG experiment to conduct 360-degree reviews for ADs

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

So this is leaving me uninspired to spend time filling the survey request I received out. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

"MORTON JR., AL" <[e-mail]> writes:

> If we can agree on the list of questions that didn’t quite reveal the
> opinions sought, we could agree to exclude those questions from
> further analysis and proceed with remaining questions that were more
> clear.
>
>
>
> Al
>
>
>
> From: WGChairs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rifaat
> Shekh-Yusef
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 12:40 PM
> To: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Working Chairs <[e-mail]>; IETF Chair <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: IESG experiment to conduct 360-degree reviews for ADs
>
>
>
> While I agree with Bob that some of the questions were weirdly
> formulated, I do not think that the experiment is a "fail".
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>  Rifaat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:30 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>     Lars,
>
>     I responded to the survey after I received it.   I am fine with
>     doing surveys.  However this one appears to have been written
>     with a very negative slant.  For example (removed the name of the
>     AD it asked about:
>
>     Q7. What best describes the quality of Internet-Drafts that XXXX
>     XXXXX reviewed and submitted to IETF Last Call?
>
>     I was expecting to select between answers like high quality to
>     low quality, but the questions are:
>
>             More significant problems than average
>             About the same severity of probems
>             Fewer Significant problems than average
>             No opinion.
>
>     It might have as well just asked “when did you stop beating your
>     wife”.
>
>     I think this survey needs to be rewritten provide for neutral
>     answers.  The current ones appear to assume there are problems.
>     It’s really bad in my view.
>
>     So far IMHO, the experiment is a “fail”.
>
>     Bob