Hi Spencer,
I would suggest balloting by Area as a baseline, with additional ADs added as
appropriate when a draft is of particular relevance or interest to an Area or a
specific AD, perhaps to one of the At-Large ADs proposed in the other thread
(who might be able to free up Jari from having to deal with every draft).
The 15-box ballot display is part of our tooling and culture that sets
expectations that each AD will pay some attention to every draft. The results
of moving to a structure and tooling in which every Area (instead of each AD)
is expected to pay some attention to every draft could vary by draft and Area,
e.g.,
- If one Routing AD says “no routing concerns here,” that could well suffice
for the entire area.
- At the other end of the spectrum, perhaps both Security ADs should look at
most drafts, because
there’s always a Security Considerations section.
- For really important drafts, it may make sense for every AD to participate in
the ballot.
Creating a culture and expectations where a significant fraction of ADs are not
expected to (but are always welcome to) participate in the ballot of every
draft ought to help reduce AD workload.
Thanks,
--David
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF
[mailto:spencerdawkins(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:21 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: "Per Area" and "Per AD" review ballots?
Hi, David,
You mentioned "per-AD" at the Admin Plenary open mike last night, and I wanted
to make sure I understood your point.
I think you were pointing to the ballot display on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/documents/, where there is a box for
each AD to ballot on each document, and suggesting that maybe balloting for
each area on each document might would work about as well, giving equivalent
coverage while reducing the review load on each AD (except Jari, of course -
there being only one GEN AD).
Does that sound familiar?
Thanks,
Spencer