Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses.
Brian,
I've been repeatedly hearing from IESG folk for some year -- and seeing reports
relating to Nomcom -- that, in fact, ADs are expected (and maybe required) to
read every draft.
Thirdly, when I was in the IESG, I was surprised quite often by
*glaring* errors that had not been picked up before. Somebody has
to be responsible for catching these, and today it's the IESG.
Offering no comment on any individuals, but looking at process and structure...
The problem with this sort of datum is that it is entirely out of essential
context and therefore is not balanced against other factors.
It implies that the considerable cost of the AD review process -- including cost
to authors, wg chair and shepherds for processing the AD's feedback -- is
justified by this error-detection benefit. But it doesn't really try to
evaluate at relative cost against relative benefit.
Is all of this effort justified if exactly one minor error is found each year?
Two? One major? What is that /actual/ improvement that this process produces?
What thresholds should apply?
That is, the presumption in your comment -- and your comment represents a broad
constituency in the IETF -- is that reviewing only has positive effects of the
review and it even implies a perfection to the process.
In reality, the current process produces documents with many errors, already.
The world survives, as does the Internet.
It well might be true that omitting the AD reviews would increase the number.
By how much? To what effect?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf