On 12/07/2013 06:49, A. Jean Mahoney wrote: > I'm also willing to help with the experiment, but I suggest that the > review tool be updated later, after we have a better idea of the new > requirements. Updating the review tool would probably require updating > datatracker also.
Yes. The following is not a complaint, since the review tool is a much-appreciated volunteer effort, but IMHO it would be better if we submitted our reviews via the review tool, which could then send them on as email automatically. At the moment I usually forget to enter the review URL into the tool until some days or weeks later! (People who've used EDAS know what I mean.) It would also make sense for reviewers to be remembered by the tracker, so that they can get status updates automatically. Since the tracker already knows who is interested in each draft, integrating the two would make a lot of sense. Brian > > I can easily capture early review assignments in the spreadsheets for now. > > Jean > > > On 7/11/13 10:23 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> 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?). >> That's a good point. Thanks. >> >> 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
