RE: Document Review: Volunteers Needed

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

Marc's mail made me think of something else.  The bar for an Info or BCP
doc is different than standards track.  Do we need this team for non
standards track.
I am suggesting we limit the authority and power of any review team as
much as possible to not break our inherent processes.
/jim
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca] 
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:08 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Bob Fink; Itojun
> Subject: Re: Document Review: Volunteers Needed
> 
> 
> 
> -- 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>