Re: Document Review: Volunteers Needed

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

-- mercredi, mars 05, 2003 22:33:55 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<mrw@windriver.com> wrote/a ecrit:

> 
> 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.

My guess on this:
- informational documents, in general in IETF at least from my experience,
usually have much less interest (exceptions exists but...) in reviewing
from people, because they are informational (no protocol bits to take care
of).
- by no means, this is a judgement call on my part, just an observation.

these scenarios documents are good to do, but we should be careful in
having them laying around for a long period. We might end up having a
focus/interest problem in the end.

I would suggest the following:
- during SFO ietf (maybe sunday), we (wg) or you (chairs) call a review
meeting by inviting people to come all at the same time, same room and go
through them, printing/reading on the screen and have the editors ready for
discussion. The wg does not have to be all there, and in fact, would be
counterproductive. But have few people that commit to come and then we all
read it together.
- then in 2 hours, we would have done: many reviewers, reviewed fast, etc...
- speaking of myself, I would commit to a 2hour review session sunday
10h00-12h00am.

A suggestion.

Marc.


> 
> 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
> 
> 
>