Re: Document Review: Volunteers Needed

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Pekka,

> > 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).
I agree.  We will need to ask people what their areas of expertise
actually are, and we may need to recruit for other areas.  Of
course, I'm not even sure what the "areas" are that we need
covered...  This will probably take some successive approximation
over time.

> Just gathering up folks is likely to equal "some" expertise, with
> purposely vague definition of "some".
True.  Once we have a list of volunteers, have determine their
areas of expertise, and have selected a subset (based on past
review responsiveness, expertise, etc.), we will probably have
to actively recruit for some uncovered areas.

> 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).
I agree.  The exact number may depend on what areas of expertise
we determine we need, and how many folks it takes to cover them.
I'd like to have a small enough group that it is easy for me, Bob
and Itojun to keep track of who has/hasn't returned comments, but a
large enough group to represent a solid, cross-functional review.

Margaret