I am also in favor of the experiment and willing to participate. Besides the changes pointed to by Brian we may also need to make some adjustments to the Gen-ART tools (new column in the table at http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/index.cgi/t=3634/fullqueue to mark the WG review due date) and the process used by the secretary (separate mail for WG early review?).
Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:53 PM > To: <[email protected]> Team > Subject: [Gen-art] Timing of reviews: conclusion > > 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
