[ Top posting - meta comment ]
Every now and then I get a bee in my bonnet and decide to carefully review each
and every draft in LC. I hate to break it to y'all, but many drafts really
poorly written, and, even if you have very broad interests, many of them are
going to be really boring to you…
While not all ADs read all drafts, most read a large fraction of them (and read
them carefully and thoughtfully enough to catch a number of large issues (and
nits) *that were not caught in LC*) -- I think that they deserve recognition
for performing a valuable and un-fun function...
Climbing off soapbox,
W
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Responding to Glen Zorn's question in plenary:
Firstly, not all ADs review all drafts - that's why you will see
numerous "no objection" or missing ballot responses.
Secondly, the drafts are de facto reviewed by review teams
these days (gen-art, security area, etc.). This serves to alert
the ADs if a draft really needs careful review. The workload is
more reasonable than it used to be.
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.
Fourthly, because of the exact same discussion that Glen raised in
plenary, the IESG defined and published its criteria for DISCUSS
several years ago. Sometimes there are inappropriate DISCUSSes
and those need to be pointed out when they happen.
I hear the IESG members responding exactly right to this question.
--
Regards
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf