Subject: Not about AD's time nor fees, just IETF efficiency (was Re: AD time)

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:03:33 +0200

On 7/31/2018 10:03 AM, Charlie Perkins wrote:

>  How could the IETF find more assurance that a WG document would get
> sufficient review?
>

I think the WG chair and AD must be responsible to appoint at least 3
reviewers  per wg-draft. Any WG needs who can find errors per work and then
comment.

IETF Efficiency:  is about knowing how to spend less time/money/effort per
WG or per ID, while maintaining the respected quality.

Our IETF managers (ADs and WG chairs) need to know how to make the best
IETF efficiency effort. They are *responsible* to know how to spend OUR
efforts and Our money and Our time per IETF Area/WG/adopted-draft. Then
they Guide us to such efficiency.

> Perhaps the pool of readers should be identified before the WG adopts the
> document.  If that happened, then when the document is ready for wider
> review, the reviewers are known and have already expressed a willingness to
> review the document.

If that solves the problem ok. However, I think we need to have TWO
participants that make up the fair discussion, one is the author and the
other is the arguer per adopted work.

> In the IEEE, the reviewers are partially motivated to retain their voting
> rights, but in the IETF we probably wouldn't want to institute such a
> system as that.  Nevertheless, having a solid constituency for document
> review and comment resolution in the IETF would help a lot.
>

If the AD knows that 5 people reviewed other than authors reviewed the
draft it is better than only 2, also it will help to know that the draft
was argued enough in meetings and on the list.

>
> My hope would be that, with a better process for document review and
> comment resolution, the ADs would find their job to be a lot easier.
>

IMHO we need a process that finds the positive and negative of the
adopted-draft. Engineers know that there is no technology without negative
sides or disadvantages, so most engineers may hide the negatives. Therefore
just reviewing document may not solve the problem, we may need for each
adopted draft, the author showing the change-advantages and another
participant finding the change-disadvantages, then it will be easy for the
WG/AD to makeup best decision.

>
> Lastly, I know that some working groups already try to do some of these
> things.  I suggest that we will know when the review process has been
> sufficiently improved, when a document almost never goes through Last Call
> without sufficient comment.
>

I think also that the review process will improve when the WG chair will
manage between adopted work and the WG review capabilities. We may find
a WG have many interested/adopted drafts, and many focused on authoring and
few/none reviewing/discussing and arguing (i.e  many making values and few
finding errors).

AB