All of this depends on the quality of the review and how it's followed up on. Having to push back on insistent nonsense is a problem. A good review that engenders a lot of discussion on substantial issues is very worthwhile. We should foster those -- they are important. This is no different than what happens within a WG. _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- a thanks to the Gen-ART reviewers Andrew Newton
- Re: a thanks to the Gen-ART reviewers Michael Thomas
- Re: a thanks to the Gen-ART reviewers Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: a thanks to the Gen-ART reviewers Frank Ellermann
- Re: a thanks to the Gen-ART reviewers Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria John C Klensin
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Scott Brim
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Dave Crocker
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Michael Thomas
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Russ Housley
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Ted Hardie
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Ted Hardie
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Russ Housley
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Jari Arkko
- Re: IONs & discuss criteria Brian E Carpenter
