On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 01:27:54PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: > >Torrey McMahon wrote: > >>Why we still do architecture review, or discussions, over email is > >>beyond me. Email is horrible tool for such things. Con-calls are a > >>close second. > >So, if these are bad, what is good? Only meetings (which are pretty > >much con-calls at this time)? Wikis? (What is the plural of "Wiki"?) > > I wouldn't say bad. I'd assert we could do much better. > > --- > > [snip]
Sounds like something somewhat like a wiki. Perhaps the tools that the IESG uses for its reviews might be an interesting model, though I don't think it's an exact fit. E-mail will do in sufficiently low volumes, but I'm thinking recent threads show it doesn't scale to an open community, not without moderation, and moderation is pretty expensive (you need moderators, who could be doing better things with their time). List moderation could tide us over until new tools are in place. (The IESG review tool in question is at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ To see an example of a review search for all documents with status "IESG Evaluation", click on "DETAIL" for any one to see all the comments. Only area directors can add DISCUSSes, vote, etc... For something like the ARC we might want a system where anyone can comment, but comments can be distinguished by whether the commenter is an i-team member, ARC member, case sponsor, ...; + spam protection.) Nico --
