Subject: On standards review panel and division of work

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:35:55 +0300 (EEST)

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 Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:34:25 +0200

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 06:09:48 -0400

--On Thursday, August 04, 2005 09:35 +0300 Pekka Savola 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> 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.
>
>...
> 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.

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:26:24 -0400

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:30:25 +0200

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 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?
> 
> 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