Re: On standards review panel and division of work
Spencer Dawkins wrote: Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka), If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical review, so I'd like to at least ask one question... In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we) both assumed that the addition of an Standards Review Panel would mean that that the IESG participants remained on the IESG. But now I'm wondering - if we have a future-SRP and a future-IESG, which one of these does the current IESG more closely resemble? I'm trying to figure out if we're really adding a Standards Review Panel, because the existing IESG is spending too much time on standards review, or whether the existing IESG is spending a LOT of time on standards review, so we're really adding an Internet Engineering Steering Group... See Sam's comment about where the time goes. But indeed there are two questions hiding here: 1. What sort of people would NomCom be told to look for the two roles? 2. Would there be enough suitable people willing to take on both the AD role truncated of final review responsibility, and the Reviewer role which has no management responsibility? [i.e. will these roles appear fulfilling enough to attract a good slate of candidates?] Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On standards review panel and division of work
Hi, Margaret's commentary on the standards review panel got me thinking of the same thing I had considered potentially problematic. If I understood her concern correctly, the point was that in the standards review panel, the IESG would basically still continue reviewing the documents (at least to some degree) -- there seems to be an expectation that they should form an opinion on them (to be attached to the review request to be sent to the review panel). When I read the document, my assumption was that the IESG could reduce the amount of review significantly, and possibly even remove it completely. There is indeed a danger that the present model could continue (compare also to the previous RFC-editor submission review, which wasn't supposed to be all that thorough in the first place!). I do not think this is a show-stopper though; as many details in the proposal, things like these can be modified. In this case, I believe the problem can be easily addressed by giving the ADs the power to initiate the review requests to the review panel -- and encouraging them to do so. This would have several benefits: * if the expectation would be that drafts would be brought before the full IESG only in exceptional cases, the load and duplication of review would not increase significantly. * if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the IESG members to ensure the drafts have been sufficiently cross-area reviewed before requesting advancement (this is obviously also chairs' responsibility) -- ensuring earlier review. * again, if there would be no full IESG review, it would force the IESG members who have a personal interest to participate during the IETF last call (or even earlier) if they want to perform personal review. * it would remove the full IESG review and place it to the different equivalent body, the review body. I don't see any disadvantages, except that if there hasn't been sufficient cross-area review before requesting the review panel to review, they might have to shuttle the documents back and forth more often. This approach might also call for IETF-wide vetting of also WG-produces informational/experimental documents, if they would be reviewed by fewer people, but if this would be needed, it could be easily added later on and isn't worth considering at this point. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On standards review panel and division of work
Hi, Pekka (but not only Pekka), If I understood Margaret last night, she was at least somewhat comfortable with a hard split between area management and technical review, so I'd like to at least ask one question... In discussions with John Klensin, I (and I think we) both assumed that the addition of an Standards Review Panel would mean that that the IESG participants remained on the IESG. But now I'm wondering - if we have a future-SRP and a future-IESG, which one of these does the current IESG more closely resemble? I'm trying to figure out if we're really adding a Standards Review Panel, because the existing IESG is spending too much time on standards review, or whether the existing IESG is spending a LOT of time on standards review, so we're really adding an Internet Engineering Steering Group... Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On standards review panel and division of work
I think the concept of separating the responsibility for final document review and approval from the responsibility for chartering and managing working workings. Yes, there are some tricky details. But it looks like they are solvable and the approach leads to improvement in several regards. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 06:09 AM 8/4/2005, John C Klensin wrote: See my note posted a short time ago (which was written before seeing yours). But, yes.This is exactly the thing I was commenting about in that note. It is, at some level, a detail. It can be tuned in any of a number of ways. I picked one, not quite at random. You suggest a different one above. I think we need to decide the concept is worthwhile (I'm not sure there is consensus on that yet), and then sort through these details. IMO, the I don't like that detail so the proposal is invalid and should not be considered approach is just not a productive way to proceed. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
