How much attention to pay to particular drafts varies by area and time.
It does take self discipline to decide how much time to dedicate to reading
drafts for the telechat. It is tempting to try and "show value" by having
comments out of one's knowledge base. It is also tempting to take time
to self-educate (still bummed about not finishing a couple particularly fun
drafts). However, No Objection is there for a reason.
In my more cynical moments, I do theorize that the draft reviews for
telechats
exist to make sure that the IESG doesn't have time to do very much rapid or
active management or organizational change.
Alia
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 27/03/2015 07:12, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Is there a real problem here?
Speaking for myself, it would have been helpful to have had a clearer
sense of what to look at and what not to waste my time on early on. I got
a solid reality check from Stewart Bryant about this midway through my
first year, but it took well into my second year to really figure out which
drafts to review closely and which to skim. However, I think it's worth
having ADs skim drafts so that they can notice cross-area issues, and for
that to work they either have to be able to ballot, or else they have to
use peer pressure. I think being able to ballot is probably better.
+1 to Ted. However, I have to say that a stint as a Gen-ART reviewer
before becoming an AD was very helpful to me, since I had already developed
a good sense of what to look for.
Also, please note that the ADs in an area can choose to operate as David
proposes already: the primary on a draft ballots YES or NO-OBJ, and the
partner follows with NO-OBJ. I suspect that is standard operating procedure
in some areas already. The partner AD will most likely pay more attention
if the first one ballots DISCUSS.
Brian