RE: Document Review: Volunteers Needed

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I hate the idea and its too bad.  But as Chairs you have no choice.
THis is very unfortuneate.  I support it as lesser of two evils.

I suggest strongly to rotate these reviewers if you can find at the end
of every IETF meeting.  So we don't have the same reviewers all the time
forever.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:34 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Bob Fink; Itojun
> Subject: Document Review: Volunteers Needed
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> In an effort to fix this problem, Bob, Itojun and I are 
> considering forming a semi-official v6ops document review team.
> 
> This team would consist of people who are willing to spend a 
> couple of hours reviewing and commenting on v6ops documents 
> at each stage of the process -- WG acceptance, major 
> intermediate revisions, WG last call(s), revisions to address 
> IESG comments, etc.
> 
> The review team would be chosen from a pool of volunteers to 
> represent a broad range of knowledge and expertise, and 
> members would be removed if they are too frequently 
> non-responsive.  All review comments would be sent to the 
> list, and treated like any individual comments.
> 
> Like most new processes, we don't know exactly how this
> would work, and there will probably be bugs to work out
> over time...  But, we strongly feel that we have to do 
> something to ensure that our documents are well reviewed 
> before they are accepted by the WG and/or advanced to the 
> IESG.  We also hope that our efforts may serve as a useful 
> model for improvements in this area throughout the IETF.
> 
> What does the WG think about this idea?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Who would be willing to volunteer for this type of role?
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> 
>