> 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.
Yes - or scope limited (only some WGs or areas at the beginning). > 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).' Good point. > 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? My initial though was that we'd do the same as we do today for drafts that change, i.e., re-review by the same person. The likelihood for draft changes is of course bigger when starting from the WGLC. Another possible work load increase to watch for. I'd be interested in your thoughts on other approaches to deal with re-reviews though. Jari _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
