Hi Jari, Personally, I'm willing to try this. I was just wondering what our "standard" template would be for this. Something like this perhaps:
The WG Chairs requested a Gen-ART review for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any Area Director comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-foobar... Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2013-07-10 IETF LC End Date: TBD IESG Telechat date: TBD Summary: Needs work... Also: we would need to update the GenART FAQ slightly. The answer to "Q: Why is my document being reviewed?" needs changing. Regards Brian On 11/07/2013 04:53, Jari Arkko wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
