In principle I am happy perform reviews in conjunction with WG last
call, even though that would probably produce a small increase in loading.
There is however a complication. Many WG email lists are "ember only",
for good reason. I do not wish to end up on all those lists. Which
means that the moderator has to let the message through, and then
probably remember to whitelist the reviewer. Ad folk have to keep
copying the reviewer explicitly with responses. I think this can be
done, but we should remember such procedural glitches.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/23/2013 6:28 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thanks again for all your hard work in doing the reviews. They make
it possible for me to concentrate on reviewing just those documents
where there are problems or I have deeper expertise. And the quality
of the protocol specifications coming out of the IETF is obviously
very important, particularly for protocols that are gaining
significant use.
As you may have seen, the IESG and the community has been wondering
if there'd be something that we could do about the IETF process, in
the sense that there's quite many things happening at the very end of
the document's life cycle. This results in some surprises, and often
also moves some important decisions out of the working group and to
author/shepherd/AD hands. A while ago we met for the IESG retreat and
wanted to experiment with three specific changes:
- sending work back to the WGs when significant changes are needed,
and making the WG the central place of the edits - moving some
directorate reviews earlier, without impact reviewer effort too much
- inviting some of the shepherds onto tele chats
I am writing to you in order to discuss the second item. How big of a
change would it be to have Gen-ART reviews be invoked during WGLC,
while the documents are still in the working groups? The goal of the
reviews would still be the same, e.g., I would be checking that the
reviews were positive and/or that the issues brought up have been
properly addressed.
There are important details to consider, however, and I would like to
get your feedback on how you would seem them having an effect, and
what would be the best way to organise this, if we decide to go ahead
with the change for the Gen-ART.
Triggering the review would have to be done by something else than
IETF last call announcement. Is the best approach is to have the WG
chairs manually request for this? Note that sometimes there are
multiple WGLCs. I presume that it would be preferable to have a
Gen-ART review be done only once at this stage, as otherwise the work
load would increase. The chairs may have some idea of whether they
are likely to need another WGLC before they start one.
There may be possibly bigger changes and time lag between the first
Gen-ART review and the one that checks that the changes are ok.
Some specs may not make it through WGLC, and a review at that stage
may increase the effort you guys are putting in, by reviewing those
specs that will fail.
Jari
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
