Scott,
I think posting the results of AD review to the Gen-ART
mailing list would be a good idea.
Thanks!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 6:25 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art-private] Updating review guidelines
> andother processchanges
>
> On 8/6/07 5:37 PM, Spencer Dawkins allegedly wrote:
> > Not sure how many Gen-ART types have seen
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/IESG_Retreat_2007_05_01-02.html, but
> > the IESG did publish their retreat minutes, including "One
> problem is
> > that many drafts are sent back for revision from AD review (Sam says
> > about 50 percent, and Jon says "higher")".
> >
> > So, I'm thinking that we're pretty much optimized for too many
> > revisions, from beginning to end. I'd like to see us either
> figure out
> > how to optimize for a smaller number of revisions, or
> explicitly change
> > the name of the IETF to include "and remedial writing
> school"... along
> > with figuring out how you can get people to actually review five
> > versions between IETF LC and a telechat, of course. It's
> not like people
> > have anything better to do than read interim drafts that will be
> > replaced by other interim drafts.
>
> Got it. This is an IETF-wide thing. So, we should optimize **our
> review comments** to try to cut down on the number of
> revisions after LC
> (or whenever we get to see it). That means getting feedback from the
> IESG about things they wish we had fixed in our reviews, or
> perhaps just
> noting AD review comments and saying "I should have thought of that".
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art-private mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art-private
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
