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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Well, I like very much the idea of WG Review Teams and Area Boards with
general responsibility for an Area - so I see Area Review Teams as
an important part of what an Area Board is "paid" to do.

   Brian

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >       Title           : Area Review Teams for Early Cross-functional Reviews
> >       Author(s)       : A. Zinin
> >       Filename        : draft-zinin-early-review-00.txt
> >       Pages           : 11
> >       Date            : 2003-10-27
> >
> >       This document contains a proposal for cross-functional IETF review
> > process that can be initiated at early stages of a document life cycle.
> > The approach is based on existing experience with area directorates and
> > other expert groups within the IETF.
> 
> I like this.  Similar to sirs, which hasn't yielded many reviews but maybe
> been a success otherwise, but more formalized and attractive (I hope).
> Note that a problem of SIRS is folks actually have little time for
> reviews -- it's difficult ot balance the level of sufficient review skills
> and having the time to actually do them...
> 
> Btw, can I call these people ARTists? :-)
> 
> A few more comments...
> 
> 1) Just an idea: would it be useful to execute something like ART on different
> stages of chartering?   A real problem I've noticed is that sometimes it
> would have been much better not to charter the work at all, or frame it
> differently, than trying to fix documents one by one.  Caveat: this isn't
> really needed, as the different chartering processes are already open to the
> community input, and are not such long term efforts that there would be a
> dire need for "early input" on chartering.
> 
> 2) Note that the 2 weeks time frame is pretty tight e.g. during the holiday
> seasons -- e.g., consider a WG chair requesting ART review on Dec 18th or
> the like?
> 
> 3) One particular place where I'd concentrate in applying early review is
> before/immediately-after a document is adopted as a WG item.  That is a
> critical step in the lifetime of a document; it has reached sufficient
> maturity, and should be readable and reasonable enough that the number of
> reviews doesn't jump up to the sky.  WG last call, IETF last call, etc. are
> both pretty late in the process -- if one wants to avoid "late surprises",
> the WG adoption is about the last good chance to do that!  Of course, if
> reducing IESG load is more important, the others are fine as well.
> 
> semi-substantial
> ----------------
> 
>      o    Operations directorate (ops-dir) has also been used for early
>           document review and during the IESG review period.
> 
> ==> my observation from a relatively short time on ops-dir is that it's
> performing only IESG reviews, not early review as such.
> 
>    When a document needs to be reviewed by ART, the AD assigns two ART
>    members as "token holders". All ART members are encouraged to review
>    the document, however, the token holders are held responsible for
>    providing comments within a 2-week time frame and following up on
>    them with the document authors and/or the hosting WG. The token hold-
>    ers will also provide the ADs with their recommendation including the
>    summary of the discussion, the list of issues and how they have been
>    addressed.
> 
> ==> assigns how?  I guess the ART members should have some say in what
> they should be reviewing as well.. :-)
> 
>      7.   If a document returns to an ART (e.g., the document is under
>           the IETF Last Call and was reviewed during the WG Last Call),
>           the same token holders will "own" the document whenever possi-
>           ble. The token holders check that the new revision of the doc-
>           ument reflects the previous discussion correctly. If no addi-
>           tional concerns arise, the recommendation to the ADs of the
>           ART remain the same.
> 
> ==> note that in some cases, it may also make sense to have new ARTists ;-)
> take a look at the document at different stages.  That should ensure that
> the reviews don't get "blind" to the document, and fresh views are ensured
> at the different stages of review.
> 
> editorial
> ---------
> 
> ==> many periods, capital chars, etc. missing especially in the comments
> section.
> 
>           bers, which will have bearings on the method of ART member
> 
> ==> s/bearings/bearing/
> 
>          The above gives the ADs the ability to insist on fixing cer-
>           tain comments that they believe represent serious issues if
>           they were discarded while processing the cross-area review
>           feedback during the WG process as described above.
> 
> ==> only cross-area, no intra-area?
> 
>    Consultation with the AD is a sanity check to make sure the set of
>    engage ARTs is chosen right
> 
> ==> s/engage/engaged/
> 
>    For WG documents this is ensures by the WG chairs who keep track of
> 
> ==> s/ensures/ensured/ ?
> 
>    members (hire more members or fire ill-performing ones) to maintain
>    adequacy of the review process and require level of off-loading.
> 
> ==> s/require/required/
> 
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Solutions mailing list
> Solutions@alvestrand.no
> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK