On 24/05/2013 11:43, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> In principle I am happy perform reviews in conjunction with WG last
> call, even though that would probably produce a small increase in loading.
I think time will tell whether it's small. Getting into the thick of
WG discussion in an area one doesn't know well can be quite a shock
to the system. That's not to say we shouldn't try it, but I would ask
for it to be a time-limited experiment initially.
It seems important to inform WGs explicitly that outside review
is taking place *and* has to be taken seriously (because if not,
the same reviewer will be back at a later stage with the same
questions).
Then there is a question: will Gen-ART re-review at the time of
IETF Last Call as well as when the draft reaches the IESG agenda?
BTW, the concept of early review by Gen-ART is not new, but I think
it was only tried for one or two drafts in the past.
Brian
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
