Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
RADext seems to be pretty consistent in terms of document quality and it being
high. They may serve as a good example. The WG is not large, but editors and
reviews are good.
The ACE use case draft went through with a low number of comments and could be
another example. It had a high number of YES ballots.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples other ADs could offer or you might
see with some research.
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.
This would be very helpful. I think most of us enjoy reading drafts when they
are well written and well reviewed for technical problems.
Thanks,
Kathleen
Bob