On 29/11/2023 05:37, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
But you have to ask - how many have done the deep dive we typically see in boost reviews? Have you even read the paper before giving an LEWG review comment? I fear the bigger issue here is that tiktok attention span defines most people these days. Having a proving ground of real user experience allays those concerns because it's people that are invested in the details of how it works.
Last few meetings at LEWG I find myself repeatedly thinking "this person hasn't read the paper". And not just for my own papers, for a majority of papers. R0's and R1's get read. R14's do not in my experience. Something I noticed about Titus when he was chair was he always seemed to have read the revision of the paper being discussed that day in detail, and had a good on-the-day knowledge of where things were and how forward progress could be maximised. I know some felt as a result papers got pushed through too quickly by Titus, and a more reflective slower process would have produced higher quality results with fewer missing parts and footguns. However if a majority of the room does not read the latest revision of a paper, it's hard to produce higher quality results no matter how slow a process you use. There is an argument therefore to keep revisions well below ten, and either push stuff through faster or reject entirely much earlier. Niall