Re: Out of the box proposal

[Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault at gmail.com>]

If the process, tools, responsibility and incentives for IESG Approval
are unchanged, then I believe this editor cycle would not materially
reduce the number of issues found by the IESG.  Like code, one can
always find more bugs.  And the importance of a "bug" always looms
large in the eye of the finder.

Perhaps if we suggested to NomCom to select less conscientious ADs?

Lisa

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Eric Burger
<eburger at standardstrack.com> wrote:
> If we really think the problem is 80% of the documents are not ready for
> IESG submission when the WG thinks it is, and if 80% of those documents have
> "classic" bugs, I would offer we do the (gasp) ITU-T thing and hire 3-4
> full-time, PAID (i.e., IETF/IAD/ISOC staff) experts to review submissions
> before they get to the IESG.
>
> A week or two lag in Editor Purgatory(tm) would be well worth it if it saves
> 50-100 days of AD/Author cycling.