Re: Document Review: Volunteers Needed

["EricLKlein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

First, Sorry I missed sending this to everyone.
>> is my comments
> are Margret's responses

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw@windriver.com>
To: "EricLKlein" <eric@mehr.ws>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: Document Review: Volunteers Needed


>
> Hi Eric,
>
> At 08:56 AM 3/6/2003 +0200, EricLKlein wrote:
> >Although I think this idea is good, I think that they should still be
> >published to the whole list so that others can still offer their input
where
> >appropriate.
>
> Absolutely!  I think we have to keep several goals in mind:
>
>          1.  Improve the quality and timeliness of review
>                  that documents are getting.
>          2.  Don't reduce openness and/or the amount of
>                  information sent to the list.  That's why
>                  I specified that all review comments (and
>                  I should have said public document revisions)
>                  will continue to be sent to the WG mailing
>                  list.  It is not our intention to create
>                  a private sub-working group, just a group of
>                  people who have agreed to be accountable for
>                  doing good, timely reviews of our documents.
>          3.  Treat comments from all WG participants with
>                  the same weight as comments from semi-official
>                  reviewers.  (although frequent non-official
>                  reviewers may get arm-twisted to volunteer :-)).
>
> The whole point is to get more consistent, timely and credible
> review of these documents -- not to do anything that will cut
> down on WG openness, or the review feedback that we're already
> getting.
>
> >So I would make it a two part review:
> >Part 1 would be the review team and part 2 would be general comments.
>
> Yes, but I'd like to see both parts happen in parallel, not in
> sequence.  (I realize that you didn't imply a sequencing).
>
> Margaret

With all taht Margaret sid in response to my comments, I agree and would be
willing to review.
Eric