RE: [IAB] Out of the box proposal

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>]

Further the number of staff suggested would not be sufficient. You'd need to at least double it to do the function Eric suggests.

And the ITU-T staff don't come with technical knowledge - at the publication stage they are more concerned about whether the document is translatable and means the same in all the official languages - or at least that was the case a few years back.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:wgchairs-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:27 PM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Subject: Re: [IAB] Out of the box proposal
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I am not clear why you suggest this is an ITU-T thing.
> 
> The ITU-T do, indeed, have an editorial staff. They operate 
> on documents after they have received the equivalent of IETF 
> last call (that is consent at a plenary meeting). This is 
> pretty much the equivalent of the RFC Editor.
> 
> It seems that you are proposing an earlier pass by a 
> professional staff. 
> Sounds expensive, but maybe the authors/WGs would be willing 
> to see this happen to speed up their documents.
> 
> I wonder whether there is a volunteer staff who could do 
> this. After all, we have several area directorates (including 
> GenArt) who review documents, and we have several enthusiasts 
> who like to look at RFCs and raise errata.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> 
>