Subject: Re: AD time

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:42:30 +0200

On 7/31/2018 10:14 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

And I agree with you that the IETF last call review process is badly
broken.   The problem is that it becomes an N^2 algorithm when in
principle every IETF participant is on the hook for every document.

CP> I really did not mean to suggest that.  A lot of IETF participants
would not be on the hook for *any* documents.  But at the time a document
is adopted by a WG, a group of reviewers should be known for that document (in
addition to the document authors).

AB> I agree too with both, and I draft-readiness should be managed/directed
by the AD of the WG. The AD and WG chair must be responsible when the draft
is ready for WGLC.

AB> Even WG discussions should be assisted, some times it is not easy to
discuss with some authors they think the draft is their work only.

AB> I suggest that the ADs appoint one participant to be against authors
per draft per developing it per WG, to make discussions on the list
(against does not mean always against but means that he/she is responsible
to say no/why-no when needed). I remember n the graduation days we use this
way to make discussions and better work.

AB> The AD should find a way to make participants discuss more deep into
each work. The AD should work efficiently and use all IETF resources, to
help optimisation and performance.

Best Regards
AB

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:15:37 +0200

> principle every IETF participant is on the hook for every document.

Its the perfect DHT with a random self-elected hash function on each member.
Scales O(rnd^rnd).

Aka: Problem really is that IETF is very lazy in drafting members to do reviews.

If we wanted to adopt any of Lloyds ICO ideas, then it should be coins you
collect for reviews and have to spend for documents you write. Everybody
wants to come to IETF with their document, nobody wants to review (from
50,000 feet perspective). 

> by the AD of the WG. The AD and WG chair must be responsible when the draft

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/2563

> discuss with some authors they think the draft is their work only.

This is easily resolved by WG chairs. Unless you have to fear collusion
between WG chairs and authors, in which case you need to escalate
to AD, etc. pp.
> way to make discussions and better work.

Sure, if we start to hand out IETF Diplomas or coins collected for opposing,
otherwise you will only get the feedback from participants that they are
personally or through their company interested in expressing. 

> help optimisation and performance.

We're working on cloning technologies for ADs to bring available AD cycles
to the level needed to support this requirement.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]