Re: [Solutions] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zinin-early-review-00.txt

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Pekka,

> Explicit assingnment is good, because it increases the probability that
> something will actually get done, otherwise everybody just thinks someone
> else will be doing it.

Exactly

> However, my main argument was about the process of "assignment".  
> Personally I wouldn't probably appreciate anyone telling me "read this and
> this by 2 weeks, thanks!" -- because I may not have the time then, might
> not be interested in the documents in question or whatever reasons.  So
> there probably has to be some dialogue about the documents being reviewed
> in some form or another.

> E.g., the dialogue could be that the AD proposes a set of documents to be
> reviewed, the reviewers tell which ones they're interested in and will do,
> and they're earmarked (might not be successful, due to the problems
> mentioned before), or the AD proposes review assignments, and unless
> exchanges/objections/etc. come up within a couple of days, they're
> considered assigned.

What we do is assign the reviewer, ask for an explicit ack, or
an explicit nack (in which case, we have to reassign)

> Of course, it should be pretty obvious to the ADs how this should be
> probably be handled that everyone would feel being treated fairly and
> spending time on reviews that he's interested about, has expertise on,
> etc. -- but I was just concerned on the wording used..

I'll see how that could be improved.

Thanks!

Alex