I wanted to conclude our earlier discussion on the timing of directorate reviews. Overall I read the thread as cautiously positive for experimenting if this helps or not. But we need to take care of a multiple issues:
- Figure out the best way for the reviewers to be able to send mail to WG lists - Limit the time/scope of the experiment in order to find out what the real effect is on, e.g., reviewer workload - Determine whether to review at WG time, IETF last call time, and IESG review time. Right now we are doing the last two. - Determine how to start the review, and what the timing is. - Carefully select review timing and documents so that they are ready for an external review - Shield reviewers from being shouted down by a large group of WG participants The suggestions for resolving these items is: - We can start the effort by having the WG chairs able to ask for this service. The team can then throttle the requests to a level they see they can handle. - Start the experiment now and review in six months, determine success based on interviewing participating reviewers and WG chairs - Perform reviews after the WGLC (in parallel with AD reviews) - Review documents while they are in the working group, and attempt to have the same person do a review of the new version that is entering the IESG telechat (similar to what we are doing now, but replacing IETF last call review with WGLC review) - Require working group chairs to mediate and monitor discussions between the reviewer and the working group - Whitelisting might be a feasible solution for making the reviewers able to post to the WG list. Or is there something else that we could do? Rely on the WG chairs approving posts? Comments? Jari _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
