Re: Document Review: Volunteers Needed

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

See a few comments below.

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> The recent poor response to our document last calls (2
> comments for one document, 4 comments for the other) is
> insufficient to justify advancing these documents to the
> IESG.

Good.

> Before we advance these document, or any documents, to the
> IESG, we want to be certain that they have been reviewed by
> a significant number of people representing a cross-section
> of areas of expertise.

This doesn't, I think, guarantee a representation of a cross-section of 
areas of expertise, unless you're very focused when gathering the team to 
see which kind of expertise they represent (more or less).

Just gathering up folks is likely to equal "some" expertise, with 
purposely vague definition of "some".
 
> If you think that this is a good idea, how could we give
> credit to this team?  Perhaps list them on the v6ops
> alternate web-site, and list them as "technical reviewers"
> in the acknowledgements section of our published
> documents?

Credit is the only "reward" (in addition to Getting Better Internet) to
those folks who do work at the IETF based on its original values (and not
because they're paid to do it, get bonuses for pushing through drafts,
advocate their employer's ideas etc.), so I think it is a must in one way
or another.

Depending on the size of "review board", it could be listed on the web 
page and the drafts.

The size of a board like this should be 5-10 (10 at most) persons.

Remember, the point (at least to me, as I understood it) is to do expert
review on drafts, not substituting "WG review" (by including everyone who
occasionally reads the drafts).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings