Re: Looking for Area Directors Under Lampposts

Hi,

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2015 11:39 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > If we want to stop the ADs spending large
> > amounts of time on document quality, we have to take away their power of
> > decision over what gets published.
>
> That statement is wrong.
While I am not sure if it’s directly about the IESG's power of decision, it is 
another view on what would be necessary to the reduce the work load on Area 
Directors.  A lot of the work load of the ADs is reviewing documents.  I think 
an important element of reducing their work load is having working groups to 
advance higher quality documents to the IESG.

I think we need some way to measure the quality of advanced documents.  It 
would be interesting to look at the number of documents that get through the 
IESG without any discusses (assuming there are any). If not, some measure of 
how many discusses per document.  This would give us a rough measure of the 
quality of drafts arriving at the IESG.  Even better report this information 
back to each w.g. to give them a quality measure to track.  There may be better 
measures, like time in IESG review, but some sort of data would be helpful for 
working groups to improve their quality.  Feedback is good.

I think that if we want to reduce the load of Area Directors, getting to the 
point where working groups advance documents that doesn’t generate discusses is 
an element of reducing the work load on area directors.

Bob

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail