Abdussalam,
On Aug 15, 2014, at 18:05, Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
<SNIP?
"improving the quality, speed, and
experience of getting work done in the IETF Routing Area. "
The routing area should think about not only work done but also the work
coming into each WG (i.e adopted work by WG). I know one WG in this area
having many work adopted while the WG size is small so reviews/analysis are
with low quality.
Rather interesting statement to make.
Remember: the IETF is made up from its participants — saying “reviews/analysis
of better quality” is needed ain’t going to change much … however producing
“reviews/analysis of better quality” might.
Thus, if you believe that in a given WG "reviews/analysis are with low
quality", then it would seem incumbent on you to simply offer up
“reviews/analysis of better quality” to that WG, would it not?
Cheers,
Thomas